Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01461/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01461-1/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

TERMPSREF

WO KM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Wayne M. Miller, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Carson McWilliams, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-1461-PHX-MHM (BPV)

ORDER

Petitioner Wayne M. Miller, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison ComplexFlorence, filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

He has paid the $5.00 filing fee. On October 4, 2007, Petitioner filed an Amended Petition.

On October 10, 2007, the Court dismissed the Petition, and on October 24, 2007, the Court

dismissed the Amended Petition with leave to amend. Petitioner filed a Second Amended

Petition (Doc. #10) on November 28, 2007. The Court will require an answer to the Second

Amended Petition.

I. Second Amended Petition

Petitioner was convicted in Pinal County Superior Court, case #CR 98024514, of

aggravated assault, and was sentenced to a 10-year term of imprisonment. In his Second

Amended Petition, Petitioner names Carson McWilliams as Respondent and the Arizona

Attorney General as an Additional Respondent. Petitioner raises the following grounds for

relief:

Case 2:07-cv-01461-MHM Document 13 Filed 01/28/08 Page 1 of 10
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

TERMPSREF - 2 -

(1) “Directed Verdict: the trial court committed fundamental error when it instructed

the jury that the issue of justification or self defense or defense of a third person applied only

to the driver. . .” (Doc. #10-2 at 10.)

(2) “The trial Court’s instruction to the jury preventing the defendant from asserting

justification as a defense against injury to an innocent third person was also fundamental

error.”

(Doc. #10-2 at 11.)

(3) “The trial court erred in proceeding to deal with fundamental jury questions in

absence of defendants trial counsel who was aware of the issues involved when settling the

instructions.” (Doc. #10-2 at 12.)

(4) “The trial court improperly sentenced the defendant to an aggregated term for

unlawful and inappropriate aggravating circumstances. Denial of Due process.” (Doc. #10-2

at 13.)

(5) “ The trial court failed to properly instruct the jury based on transferred intent . .

. thereby constituting fundamental error . . .violates the 6th U.S. Amendment.” (Doc. #10-2

at 14.)

(6) “The State Court violated the Defendant’s 6th Amendment right to self

representation, structural error.” (Doc. #10-2 at 15.)

(7) “The unconstitutional error of the law of the case denied the defendant due process

and a fair trial.” (Doc. #10-2 at 16.)

(8) “The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment Prohibition on the knowing use of material

perjury, starting at the Grand Jury and continuing throughout the trial.” (Doc. #10-2 at 17.)

(9) “Conviction obtained by action of petite jury which was unconstitutionally

selected or impaneled.” (Doc. #10-2 at 18.)

(10) “Conviction obtained by the unconstitutional failure of the prosecutor to disclose

relevant exculpatory and impeachment evidence or the destruction of same evidence

foreclosing discovery to the defendant. . .under the 5, 6, 14 U.S.C.A. Amendment.” (Doc.

#10-2 at 19.)

Case 2:07-cv-01461-MHM Document 13 Filed 01/28/08 Page 2 of 10
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

TERMPSREF - 3 -

(11) “Sixth Amendment, Due Process Right to a Speedy Trial was violated by the

state court taking three years and seven months and the suppression of most relevant,

exculpatory evidence and witnesses.” (Doc. #10-2 at 20.)

(12) “. . . The Appellate court should reverse this unconstitutional conviction for

failing to prove intent.” (Doc. #10-1 at 3.)

(13) “Was the Defendant’s constitutional right to a self defense instruction violated?

. . .violates the second amendment.” (Doc. #10-3 at 2.)

(14) “Whether the jury instructions were so erroneous as to rise to the level of

constitutional error? Clear error, violated due process and a fair trial.” (Doc. #10-3 at 3.)

(15) “Whether the Defendant’s constitutional right to challenge the jury selection was

violated causing the Defendant to have to stand trial with an unconstitutional jury.” (Doc.

#10-3 at 4.)

(16) “The Court[‘]s failure to give a lesser included offense instruction of simple

assault where the supposed victim was superficially injured. . .” (Doc. #10-3 at 5.)

(17) “ The Defendant[’]s constitutional right to have the jury instructed on as many

theories of defense as are in the record was violated. Violation of the 6th and 14th U.S.C.A.”

(Doc. #10-3 at 6.)

(18) “ The state’s failure to instruct the jury that specific intent to assault the specific

individual (injury) is required for conviction of aggravated assault with its 7.5 year

presumptive sentence.” (Doc. #10-3 at 7.)

(19) “The Arizona State universal tests for conclusive proof of aggravated assault as

were used in this case consisting of ‘they were scared’ or ‘they were injured’ are

unconstitutional.” (Doc. #10-3 at 8.)

(20) “Constitutional right only to be tried on a grand jury indictment . . .the court

abused its discretion and committed reversible constitutional error by refusing to remand

back to the grand jury.” (Doc. #10-3 at 9.)

(21) “The Defendant’s constitutional right to present and have the jury consider all

the relevant evidence on all the elements of the offense and that evidence of his voluntary act,

Case 2:07-cv-01461-MHM Document 13 Filed 01/28/08 Page 3 of 10
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

TERMPSREF - 4 -

clearly relevant to the issue of whether he acted knowingly and purposely was violated.”

(Doc. #10-3 at 10.)

(22) “The victim[’]s consent, assumption of risk, aiding and abetting and superficial

injury as well as the defendant acting in self defense reverses this conviction. Denial of Due

Process.” (Doc. #10-3 at 11.)

(23) “The trial court[’]s failure to instruct on the amount of force which can be used

in self defense was a denial of due process and a fair trial.” (Doc. #10-3 at 12.)

(24) “Selective prosecution violates due process under the 5th Amendment includes

freedom from selective prosecution based on unjustifiable arbitrary standards.” (Doc. #10-3

at 13.)

(25) “Because there was only superficial injury here, this aggravated assault

conviction is simple assault and the conviction must be reversed.” (Doc. #10-3 at 14.)

(26) “Actual innocen[c]e, manifest injustice.” (Doc. #10-3 at 15.)

(27) “This Court should reverse the conviction because of the trial court failure to give

an adequate self defense instruction under the federal and state constitutions.” (Doc. #10-3

at 16.)

(28) “Whether the defendant[’]s constitutional right to act in self defense was

violated? In violation of the second amendment bill of rights.” (Doc. #10-3 at 17.)

(29) “The government’s punishment of the defendant because he did what the law

plainly allowed him to do is a due process violation of the most basic sort.” (Doc. #10-3 at

18.)

(30) “The jury instructions given at the trial directed the jury to presume that the

defendant had the mental states of action intentionally or knowingly upon a finding that the

defendant performed the physical act.” (Doc. #10-3 at 19.)

(31) “Outrageous government conduct reverses the conviction, clear error.” (Doc.

#10-3 at 20.)

(32) “The Portillo instruction on reasonable doubt is unconstitutional and therefore

the conviction must be reversed because it reduces the quantum of evidence needed to acquit

Case 2:07-cv-01461-MHM Document 13 Filed 01/28/08 Page 4 of 10
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

TERMPSREF - 5 -

a ‘real possibility’ of innocen[c]e. When due process requires ‘some doubt.’” (Doc. #10-4

at 1.)

(33) “Constitutional right not to be found guilty if the government fails to prove their

guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Violates 5, 6, 14th U.S.C.A. Amendments.” (Doc. #10-4

at 2.) 

(34) “Whether the instructions regarding burden of proof were so inherently

contradictory and confusing as to rise to the level of constitutional infirmity?” (Doc. #10-4

at 3.)

(35) “Was the Defendant’s 4th United States Constitutional Amendment right to be

safe and secure in his home and property violated?” (Doc. #10-4 at 4.)

(36) “‘Unconstitutional’ assault instruction. Vio. Of 5th 6th 14th U.S.C.A., 2nd

Amend. Whether the state of Arizona Unconstitutionally gutted the felony assault instruction

to where the Defendant committed aggravated assault if he just scared the aggressor?” (Doc.

#10-4 at 5.)

(37) “Whether the Court using the ‘apprehension’ element of aggravated assault. . .

to prove the class 3 element of which the Defendant was convicted is reversible error in that

it relieved the state’s burden of proof?” (Doc. #10-4 at 6.)

(38) “Whether instructing the jury on the doctrine of transferred intent constituted

reversible error, as the instruction lessened the state[’]s burden to prove elements of the

offense. In violation of the 5th 6th 14th U.S.C.A. Amend., Due Process denying a fair trial.”

(Doc. #10-4 at 7.)

(39) “The Court abused is discretion and committed reversible constitutional error by

making the Defendant stand trial on a defective indictment of a 9 to 5 vote and 6 counts of

material perjury. Also left out were the elements of assault for each of the 4 counts.” (Doc.

#10-4 at 8.)

(40) “Whether the Defendant was denied due process and equal protection by the

court refusing to change venue and judge 4 times. In violation of the 5, 6, 14th U.S.C.A. bill

of rights denying a fair trial.” (Doc. #10-4 at 9.)

Case 2:07-cv-01461-MHM Document 13 Filed 01/28/08 Page 5 of 10
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

TERMPSREF - 6 -

(41) “The trial court[’]s exclusion of the driver[’]s disposition records disallowed the

defendant to challenge the reasonable doubt issue of who was the aggressor? Directed

verdict, clear error.” (Doc. #10-4 at 10.)

(42) “Whether the jury not having to prove voluntary act as an element of the assault

charge denied the defendant due process where the act was reflexive and therefore not a

crime? Denial of due process and a fair trial in violation of the 5, 6, 14th U.S.C.A. Amend.”

(Doc. #10-4 at 11.)

(43) “The prosecutor[’]s failure to disprove self defense denied the defendant due

process and equal protection and a fair trial, denial of due process.” (Doc. #10-4 at 12.)

(44) “The verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Only evidence of self

defense; drivers excluded record proved he was aggressor.” (Doc. #10-4 at 13.)

(45) “The trial judge unconstitutionally refused to give a definition of “innocent third

party” where the entire case turned on this legal definition. Denial of due process and a fair

trial in violation of the 5th 6th 14th U.S.C.A. Amendment.” (Doc. #10-4 at 14.)

(46) “Unconstitutional voir dire. Unconstitutional jury. Court refused to turn over a

copy of the jury pool for challenge (3 times). Defendant[’]s voir dire excludes all

government affiliates. . .” (Doc. #10-4 at 15.)

(47) “Petitioner’s right to have the jury instructed to determine beyond a reasonable

doubt guaranteed under the due process clause and the 5th and 14th amendments to the

constitution was violated by the deficient instructions.” (Doc. #10-4 at 16.)

(48) “The aggravated assault statute is unconstitutionally broad and vague. In that it

uses the ‘old’ misdemeanor assault element of ‘intentionally putting a person in apprehension

of physical injury’ used prior to the adoption of the new code, for conviction.” (Doc. #10-4

at 17.)

(49) “Unconstitutional suppression of evidence and witnesses; structural error. Denial

of due process, 5, 6, 14th U.S.C.A. vio. Manifest error, abuse of discretion std. Not harmless

error.” (Doc. #10-4 at 18.)

Case 2:07-cv-01461-MHM Document 13 Filed 01/28/08 Page 6 of 10
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

TERMPSREF - 7 -

(50) “The Defendant[’]s 6th Amendment right to confrontation was violated by the

trial court[’]s suppression of all impeachment evidence thereby denying him from attacking

the victim[’]s witnesses credibility, bias and motivations on cross-examination.” (Doc. #10-4

at 19.)

(51) “The Court abused its discretion and denied the defendant[’]s 6th amendment

right to compulsory process by allowing time for an investigator and allowing the defendant

pro se representation and forcing attorney who did nothing.” (Doc. #10-4 at 20.)

(52) “The petite jury was improperly constituted, improperly selected in violation of

statute and the federal jury selection act of 1968; and a violation of the 5, 6, 14th

constitutional amendments.” (Doc. #10-5 at 1.)

(53) “The trial court abused its discretion and committed reversible constitutional

error under the 5, 6, 14th amendment by failing to put a cognizable proof statement in the

jury instructions, so that the jury would know what it had to prove for each count of the (4)

count indictment.” (Doc. #10-5 at 2.)

(54) “The Court refused to give a Willits instruction for the missing evidence and

witnesses. In violation of the 5, 6, 14th Amendment, the fairness doctrine.” (Doc. #10-5 at

3.)

(55) “Biased Judge, structural error under the 6th Amendment.” (Doc. #10-5 at 1.)

(56) “The Defendant[’]s coun[se]l of choice was violated; in violation of the 6th

amendment U.S.C.A.” (Doc. #10-5 at 4.)

(57) “Prosecutorial misconduct, the prosecutor in his closing argument enflamed the

jury that the supposed victim[’]s injuries were substantial and ‘lets not let him get away with

that insult’ while refusing to let into evidence the hospital records showing superficial

injuries.” (Doc. #10-5 at 5.)

(58) “The trial court and prosecutor[’]s act of pulling the Defendants 30+ filings

lawfully filed over a two year period and with the obvious intent to keep the Defendant from

appealing is reversible error, structural error, cause and prejudice standard.” (Doc. #10-5 at

6.)

Case 2:07-cv-01461-MHM Document 13 Filed 01/28/08 Page 7 of 10
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

TERMPSREF - 8 -

(59) “The trial court relied on false information in imposing sentence and vindictively

enhanced the petitioner[’]s sentence. In violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments of the

United States Constitutions.” (Doc. #10-5 at 7.)

(60) “The Defendants constitutional right to have the jury determine the aggravating

factors beyond a reasonable doubt was violated.” (Doc. #10-5 at 8.)

(61) “Ineffective assistance of counsel.” (Doc. #10-5 at 9.)

(62) “The Government[’]s refusal to disclose its promise of leniency made to its key

witnesses in return for witnesses[’] testimony was reversible error.” (Doc. #10-5 at 10.)

(63) “The Defendant[’]s constitutional rights to trial by jury was violated by the

deficient self defense instruction in this case.” (Doc. #10-5 at 11.)

(64) “Whether the statutory offense definition violates the intent of the legislature and

due process under the 5, 6, 14th U.S.C.A. amendment and a fair trial.” (Doc. #10-5 at 12.)

(65) “Whether the state not having to prove a culpable mental state for the supposed

dangerous weapon, where it alone changed the crime from simple assault and enhanced the

sentence from 6 months maximum to 10 years. A denial of due process and a fair trial.”

(Doc. #10-5 at 13.)

(66) “Whether the court and the prosecutor established unfair and unconstitutional

limitations on the defendant[’]s self defense thereby directing a guilty verdict and denying

due process and a fair trial. In violation of 5, 6, 14th U.S.C.A. amendment bill of rights.”

(Doc. #10-5 at 14.)

Petitioner states that he has presented all of these issues to the Arizona Court of

Appeals. The Court will require Respondents to answer the Second Amended Petition. 28

U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

II. Warnings

A. Address Changes

Petitioner must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with Rule

83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner must not include a motion for other

Case 2:07-cv-01461-MHM Document 13 Filed 01/28/08 Page 8 of 10
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

TERMPSREF - 9 -

relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of this

action.

B. Copies

Petitioner must serve Respondents, or counsel if an appearance has been entered, a

copy of every document that he files. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a). Each filing must include a

certificate stating that a copy of the filing was served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d). Also, Petitioner

must submit an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. LRCiv 5.4. Failure to

comply may result in the filing being stricken without further notice to Petitioner.

C. Possible Dismissal

If Petitioner fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including these

warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to

comply with any order of the Court).

III. Motion for Bond on Appeal

On December 5, 2007, Petitioner filed a Motion for Bond on Appeal in which he

requests that he be released in exchange for posting a $250,000 bond. Release on bail should

be granted to a prisoner pending post-conviction habeas review only when the petitioner has

raised substantial constitutional claims upon which he has a high probability of success on

the merits or in extraordinary cases involving exceptional circumstances which make

granting of bail necessary to the effectiveness of the habeas remedy. Land v. Deeds, 878

F.2d 318 (9th Cir. 1989).

It is inappropriate to release a petitioner on bond even when the petition makes out

a clear case for his release. Something more than a meritorious claim is required before

release on bond is justified. Benson v. California, 328 F.2d 159, 162 (9th Cir. 1964).

There are thousands of prisoners confined in state prisons, any of whom, with

a little assistance from their cell mates, would have no difficulty in drafting a

petition for writ of habeas corpus which would allege substantial violations of

constitutional rights. We do not propose, by ruling in this case, to open the

door to the release of those thousands of prisoners on the basis of mere

allegations in their petitions.

Id. at 162-163 n.2.

Case 2:07-cv-01461-MHM Document 13 Filed 01/28/08 Page 9 of 10
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

TERMPSREF - 10 -

The Court finds that Petitioner has not raised substantial constitutional claims upon

which he has a high probability of success on the merits, nor has he demonstrated exceptional

circumstances necessitating granting bail. Accordingly, the Court will deny Petitioner’s

Motion for Bond on Appeal.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The Clerk of Court must serve a copy of the Second Amended Petition (Doc.

#10) and this Order on the Respondent and the Attorney General of the State of Arizona by

certified mail pursuant to Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

(2) Respondents must answer the Second Amended Petition within 40 days of the

date of service. Respondents must not file a dispositive motion in place of an answer but

may file an answer limited to relevant affirmative defenses, including but not limited to,

statute of limitations, procedural bar, or non-retroactivity. If the answer is limited to

affirmative defenses, only those portions of the record relevant to those defenses need be

attached to the answer. Failure to set forth an affirmative defense in an answer may be

treated as a waiver of the defense. Day v. McDonough, 126 S. Ct. 1675, 1684 (2006). If not

limited to affirmative defenses, the answer must fully comply with all of the requirements

of Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

(3) Petitioner may file a reply within 30 days from the date of service of the

answer.

(4) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Bernardo P. Velasco pursuant to

Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for further proceedings and a

report and recommendation.

(5) Petitioner’s December 5, 2007 Motion for Bond on Appeal (Doc. #11) is

denied.

DATED this 25th day of January, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01461-MHM Document 13 Filed 01/28/08 Page 10 of 10