Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00780/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00780-0/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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert Earl Johnson, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV11-0780-PHX-SRB

ORDER

Petitioner filed a timely Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus asserting two claims. In

Ground One, Petitioner argues that he was improperly sentenced in state court pursuant to

A.R.S. § 13-604(A) and (B), when he should have been sentenced pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-

702.02. Petitioner claims this sentencing error violates the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution. In Ground Two, Petitioner argues that he

received illegal sentences in state court in violation of the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendments because the prior felony conviction used to enhance his sentence did not

qualify as a historical prior felony conviction under Arizona law. Respondents filed an

answer. Petitioner replied.

The Magistrate Judge issued his Report and Recommendation on October 24, 2011

recommending that the Petition be denied because Petitioner argued that his sentences were

imposed in violation of Arizona law and such state law claims are not cognizable on federal

habeas corpus review. The Magistrate Judge also concluded that Petitioner's reference to the

Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution do not transform

Case 2:11-cv-00780-SRB Document 24 Filed 12/20/11 Page 1 of 2
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 -

his state law claims into federal ones. Petitioner filed timely objections to the Report and

Recommendation on November 7, 2011, arguing that his two issues are cognizable on federal

habeas review and claiming that his custody is in violation of the United States Constitution

because he was denied procedural and substantive due process of law under the Fifth and

Fourteenth Amendment, was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth

Amendment, and was denied fair sentencing under the Sixth Amendment. Respondents filed

a response to Petitioner's objections agreeing with the analysis of the Magistrate Judge in his

Report and Recommendation.

This Court also agrees with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.

Petitioner raised only state law claims related to sentencing in his federal habeas petition. His

references to the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

cannot transform these claims into federal ones as noted by the Magistrate Judge. Similarly,

his citations to the Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution in his

objections also do not transform his state law based sentencing claims into federal claims.

IT IS ORDERED overruling Petitioner's objections to the Report and

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge as the Order of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is

denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed

in forma pauperis on appeal is denied because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing

of the denial of a constitutional right.

DATED this 20th day of December, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-00780-SRB Document 24 Filed 12/20/11 Page 2 of 2