Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02210/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02210-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

wo

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Elmer Levi Klink, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Craig Fizer, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-02210-PHX-ROS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) from Magistrate

Judge Edward C. Voss. (Doc. 14). Judge Voss recommends the Petition for a Writ of Habeas

Corpus be denied and dismissed with prejudice. Judge Voss also recommends that a

certificate of appealability be denied. The R&R will be adopted in full.

BACKGROUND

In 2003, Petitioner Elmer Levi Klink was convicted in state court of numerous sexual

crimes involving children. (Doc. 10-2 at 13-15). Petitioner was sentenced to 86 years in

prison for the convictions. (Doc. 10-2 at 17-20). Petitioner filed a direct appeal, raising only

one issue: that his request for a mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct should have been

granted. (Doc. 10-2 at 32). The Arizona Court of Appeals rejected this argument and

affirmed Petitioner’s convictions. (Doc. 10-2 at 62). The Arizona Supreme Court denied

review.

Case 2:08-cv-02210-ROS Document 18 Filed 09/03/10 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1

 The R&R contains additional factual information regarding the filing of this petition.

- 2 -

Petitioner filed a pro per Petition for Post-Conviction Relief.1

 (Doc. 10-2 at 99). The

petition raised fifteen claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and nine claims of

ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The state court denied the petition, finding it

“largely conclusionary [sic] in nature” and that it failed “to provide specific arguments, facts

or citations to the record.” (Doc. 10-2 at 109). The Arizona Court of Appeals denied review

of this decision. Petitioner did not ask the Supreme Court of Arizona for review.

Petitioner filed his habeas petition in this Court approximately two months after the

Arizona Court of Appeals denied review. (Doc. 10-3 at 3). As summarized by Magistrate

Judge Voss, the habeas petition contains four grounds for relief: (1) as a result of

prosecutorial misconduct, Petitioner was denied the right to due process of law; (2)

Petitioner’s trial attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel; (3) Petitioner’s direct

appeal attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel; and (4) mistakes made in the state

court proceeding violated his right to due process. (Doc. 1 at 76-79, Doc. 14 at 2-3). 

Magistrate Judge Voss found claims one and four procedurally defaulted in their

entirety. Magistrate Judge Voss also found portions of claims two and three procedurally

defaulted. Those claims not procedurally defaulted failed on their merits. Petitioner filed

timely objections. (Doc. 17). 

STANDARD

A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Where any party has

filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendations, the district

court’s review of the part objected to is to be de novo. Id.; see also United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,

1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo review of

factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, but not otherwise.”) (internal

quotations and citations omitted).

Case 2:08-cv-02210-ROS Document 18 Filed 09/03/10 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

DISCUSSION

I. Ground One was Procedurally Defaulted

Petitioner alleges in ground one that he was denied the right to due process as a result

of prosecutorial misconduct. Judge Voss recommends denying this claim as procedurally

defaulted, because Petitioner failed to fairly present it in state court. A claim has been fairly

presented if the petitioner has described both the operative facts and the federal legal theory

on which it is based. Bland v. Cal. Dep’t of Corrections, 20 F.3d 1472-73 (9th Cir. 1994),

overruled on other grounds by Schell v. Witek, 218 F.3d 1017, 1025 (9th Cir. 2000) (en

banc). A state prisoner has not fairly presented his federal claims in state court “unless he

specifically indicated to that court that those claims were based on federal law.” Lyons v.

Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668 (9th Cir. 2000), amended on other grounds, 247 F.3d 904 (9th

Cir. 2001). 

After considering Petitioner’s objections, the Court finds Petitioner did not fairly

present his federal due process claim in state court. In his direct appeal based on

prosecutorial misconduct, the claim never mentions that it is based on federal due process

protections. In the final sentence of the conclusion of the appeal memorandum, Petitioner

stated that his “rights to due process” were denied. As noted, a petitioner seeking relief

based on federal law must describe the federal legal theory in order to fairly present it to the

state court. Petitioner’s direct appeal never indicates that it is based on federal due process

protections, and the Arizona Court of Appeals did not interpret it as such. As the Arizona

courts were never given a fair opportunity to resolve the claim, it is procedurally barred.

Petitioner does not dispute that his deadline for filing the claim in state court has passed, such

that the claim is procedurally defaulted. Petitioner has not shown cause to overcome the

procedural default. Ground one will be denied.

Case 2:08-cv-02210-ROS Document 18 Filed 09/03/10 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

II. Ground Two Was Procedurally Defaulted in Part and Fails on Its Merits in Part

Petitioner alleges in ground two that his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance

of counsel in violation of the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Judge Voss

identified six separate ineffective assistance claims: (1) failing to call certain witnesses; (2)

Petitioner was not allowed to testify in his own behalf; (3) failing to raise objections to

preserve Petitioner’s right to appeal; (4) the attorney had a tape that recanted accusations; (5)

allowing the prosecutor to force Petitioner’s wife to testify in violation of the spousal

privilege; and (6) failing to pursue the issue of the jury conversing in the hallway about the

outcome of the case before the verdict. 

A. Claims 4 and 5

Judge Voss recommends denying claims 4 and 5 as procedurally defaulted because

Petitioner failed to present them in his post-conviction petition to the trial court. Petitioner

objects that he did present these claims in his post conviction petition, but he does not cite

to any page number. Petitioner did not present these claims in his post-conviction petition.

(Doc. 10-2, Ex. P). Judge Voss’s recommendation that they be denied will be adopted.

B. Claims 1-3, 6

 Judge Voss recommends denying claims 1, 2, 3, and 6 on the merits because

Petitioner failed to meet his burden of explaining how his attorney’s actions constituted

ineffective assistance of counsel. Petitioner fails to explain which witnesses were called and

why their testimony would have changed the outcome. Petitioner does not explain why he

was not allowed to testify, or why the outcome would have been different if he had.

Petitioner does not say what objections his lawyer failed to raise, or how they would change

the outcome. Finally, Petitioner fails to explain why his lawyer’s failure to pursue the issue

of the jury conversing in the hallway would have changed the outcome.

Petitioner objects that he was advised to state his claims briefly and in simple

language. But Petitioner fails to add any further explanation as to why his attorney’s actions

constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. Petitioner offers only conclusory allegations.

A party seeking habeas relief must supply the court with sufficient information on which to

Case 2:08-cv-02210-ROS Document 18 Filed 09/03/10 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

assess the merits of the claims. Petitioner has not done so. Claims 1-3, and 6 of Ground Two

will be denied. 

III. Ground Three Was Procedurally Default in Part and Fails on Its Merits in Part

Petitioner alleges in ground three that his direct appeal attorney provided ineffective

assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Judge

Voss identified 12 separate allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. Judge Voss

recommends all but one of these allegations be denied as procedurally defaulted, because

Petitioner failed to present them in his post-conviction petition for review to the Arizona

Court of Appeals. Judge Voss identified only one allegation that was properly exhausted:

appellate counsel wouldn’t communicate with Defendant about the trial, despite numerous

requests by mail. 

A. Procedurally Defaulted Claims

Petitioner objects that he did raise all of the allegations in his petition for postconviction relief. Petitioner is incorrect. With one exception, which is considered separately

below, Petitioner did not fairly present his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. (Doc.

10, Ex. R.) Because his time period for presenting these claims has expired, they are

procedurally defaulted and will be denied. 

B. Exhausted Claim Fails on Merits

Petitioner properly exhausted his claim that his appellate counsel was ineffective in

failing to communicate with Petitioner. Petitioner fails to explain why the outcome of his

appeal would have been different if his counsel communicated with him more. Petitioner

objects that he was advised to state his claims simply. But Petitioner adds no further

explanation to support his claim. Petitioner fails to show ineffective assistance of appellate

counsel, and the claim will be denied.

Case 2:08-cv-02210-ROS Document 18 Filed 09/03/10 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 6 -

IV. Ground Four Was Procedurally Defaulted

Petitioner alleges in ground four that his due process rights were violated because

“many petitions and motions [in the state court] have gone unanswered or addressed.” (Doc.

1 at 79). Judge Voss recommends denying this ground as procedurally defaulted. Petitioner

did not raise any similar claim in his direct appeal or his petition for post-conviction relief.

(Doc. 10-2 at 43, 99-107). Thus, this claim is procedurally defaulted. Petitioner has not

provided any basis to overcome the default.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 14) is ADOPTED and the

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) IS DENIED and DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE.

FURTHER ORDERED A certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma

pauperis on appeal IS DENIED because the dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain

procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable, and

Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

DATED this 2nd day of September, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-02210-ROS Document 18 Filed 09/03/10 Page 6 of 6