Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02187/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02187-1/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

Maurice Patterson, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles Ryan; et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-2187-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before this Court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1),

the Report and Recommendation from the Magistrate Judge recommending that the Petition

be denied (Doc. 27), and Petitioner’s objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc.

28).

This Court “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)(1). Because objections

were filed, the Court will review the Petition de novo. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328

F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

As the Report and Recommendation details, and Petitioner concedes in his objections,

Petitioner pleaded guilty in Phoenix Municipal Court to a misdemeanor charge of domestic

violence. Doc. 27 at 1, Doc. 28 at 2; Doc. 23-1 at 21. At the time of his plea, Petitioner

waived his right to counsel. Doc. 23-1 at 22. 

In his Petition, Petitioner asserts two grounds for relief: Ground 1, violation of

Case 2:09-cv-02187-JAT Document 29 Filed 11/16/10 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 -

Petitioner’s 5th, 6th and 14th amendment rights; Ground 2, violation of Petitioner’s 4th, 5th, and

14th amendment rights. This Court finds that because Petitioner pleaded guilty, all of these

pre-plea alleged violations cannot form the basis for habeas relief. As the Supreme Court has

stated:

We thus reaffirm the principle recognized in the Brady trilogy: a guilty plea

represents a break in the chain of events which has preceded it in the criminal

process. When a criminal defendant has solemnly admitted in open court that

he is in fact guilty of the offense with which he is charged, he may not

thereafter raise independent claims relating to the deprivation of constitutional

rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea. He may only attack the

voluntary and intelligent character of the guilty plea by showing that the

advice he received from counsel was not within the standards set forth in

McMann.

Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973). Thus, Petitioner is not entitled to relief on

either of his grounds. 

Further, reviewing the objections as a whole, the sum of Petitioner’s argument appears

to be that Petitioner could not take an appeal of his guilty plea because the city of Phoenix

prosecutor’s office somehow prosecuted this entire case under a civil traffic case number.

Doc. 28 at 1-2. Petitioner offers no citations to the record to support this argument. The

Court has reviewed the exhibits filed by Respondents and by Petitioner and does not find any

factual support for Petitioner’s argument. Therefore, alternatively, even if Petitioner’s theory

could legally entitle him to relief, his grounds fail because there is no factual support for

them in the record.

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 27) is accepted and

adopted, the objections (Doc. 28) are overruled, and the Petition (Doc. 1) is denied, with

prejudice, and the Clerk fo the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:09-cv-02187-JAT Document 29 Filed 11/16/10 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 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases, in the event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court denies issuance of a

certificate of appealability because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

DATED this 15th day of November, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-02187-JAT Document 29 Filed 11/16/10 Page 3 of 3