Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08203/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08203-1/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

Dean Benally, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-8203-PCT-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (doc. 1), his amended petition (doc. 6), respondent’s response (doc. 16),

petitioner’s reply (doc. 17), the report and recommendation of the United States Magistrate

Judge (doc. 18), and petitioner’s objections (doc. 19).

Pursuant to a plea agreement, petitioner pled guilty to one count of felony shoplifting

and one count of sexual abuse. He was sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment for

a total of 6.75 years. He now challenges that conviction and sentence, asserting 7 grounds

for habeas relief: (1) the sentence imposed under A.R.S. § 13-604 violated his due process

rights; (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel due to counsel’s failure to sufficiently

communicate with him; (3) he was subjected to double jeopardy and double punishment; (4)

the sentencing statute should have been cited in the plea agreement; (5) the prosecutor did

not inform the trial court that the plea was a “package deal” with his co-defendant; (6) his

Case 3:11-cv-08203-FJM Document 20 Filed 11/15/12 Page 1 of 3
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

- 2 -

sentence was disproportionate in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and (7) A.R.S. § 13-

703 is not cited in the plea agreement or commitment papers. 

The Magistrate Judge concluded that petitioner had not fairly presented any of his

habeas claims to the state courts, and therefore no claim is properly exhausted. Because

petitioner has no available remedy in the state courts for any of the unexhausted habeas

claims, the Magistrate Judge also concluded that all claims are procedurally defaulted and

precluded from federal review. Finally, the Magistrate Judge determined that petitioner has

not shown cause for the procedural default or actual prejudice resulting from the alleged

federal law violations, or actual innocence resulting in a fundamental miscarriage of justice.

Following our de novo review, we agree with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions and

recommendation that the habeas petition should be denied and dismissed with prejudice. 

Although petitioner argues that he raised ineffective assistance claims “from the start

of his Post Conviction Relief,” Objections at 2, the specific claim asserted in his habeas

petition–that the public defender failed to sufficiently communicate with him, including

failing to inform him that “intentionally and knowingly” are elements of the sex offense

count–was raised for the first time in his motion for reconsideration of the trial court’s denial

of his post-conviction petition. The trial court ruled that the new claims were not cognizable

in a motion for reconsideration and denied the motion. In addition to not raising this claim

in his original post-conviction petition, petitioner did not raise the claim in his petitions for

review in the court of appeals and supreme court. Accordingly, this claim, as well as the

other claims asserted in this petition, are unexhausted and procedurally defaulted. 

Federal review of the unexhausted, procedurally defaulted claims is barred unless

petitioner demonstrates cause for the default, resulting in prejudice, or that failure to review

the claim would result in a “fundamental miscarriage of justice.” Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S.

288, 298, 109 S. Ct. 1060, 1068-69 (1989). To establish “cause,” a petitioner must

demonstrate that some objective factor external to the defense impeded his efforts to comply

with the state’s procedural rules. Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 488, 106 S. Ct. 2639,

2645 (1986). To establish “prejudice,” a petitioner must show that the alleged constitutional

Case 3:11-cv-08203-FJM Document 20 Filed 11/15/12 Page 2 of 3
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 -

violation “worked to his actual and substantial disadvantage, infecting his entire trial with

error of constitutional dimensions.” United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 170, 102 S. Ct.

1584, 1596 (1982) (emphasis in original). Where the petitioner does not establish cause, the

court need not reach the prejudice prong. A federal court may also review the merits of a

procedurally defaulted claim if petitioner demonstrates that failure to consider the merits will

result in a “fundamental miscarriage of justice.” Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 327, 115 S.

Ct. 851, 867 (1995). A “fundamental miscarriage of justice” occurs when a constitutional

violation has probably resulted in the conviction of one who is actually innocent. Id. The

petitioner must establish that it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have

found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in light of new evidence. Id.; 28 U.S.C. §

2254(e)(2)(B). 

Petitioner does not attempt to show cause for his default. Nor has he demonstrated

a fundamental miscarriage of justice. Therefore, federal review of petitioner’s claims is

barred.

IT IS ORDERED ACCEPTING the recommended disposition by the Magistrate

Judge (doc. 18), and DENYING AND DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE the petition and

amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (docs. 1, 6). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING a certificate of appealability and leave

to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because dismissal of the habeas petition is justified

by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the ruling debatable. 

DATED this 14th day of November, 2012.

Case 3:11-cv-08203-FJM Document 20 Filed 11/15/12 Page 3 of 3