Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00775/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00775-0/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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

Eduardo Pineda-Salgado, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Unknown Blair, et al., 

Respondents, 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV10-0775-PHX-SRB

ORDER

Petitioner Eduardo Pineda-Salgado filed an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus raising two grounds for relief. Petitioner asserts that his Sixth Amendment and Due

Process Rights were violated when the trial court failed to instruct the jury on the lesser

included offense of theft. Petitioner also argues that his Sixth Amendment Rights were

violated because the trial court sentenced him to an aggravated term of imprisonment. The

Respondents responded in opposition to the Petition asserting that Petitioner's claims were

procedurally defaulted and that they were without merit. Petitioner filed a reply in support

of his Petition. 

On May 18, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued his Report and Recommendation

recommending to this Court that the Petition be dismissed with prejudice because Petitioner

failed to exhaust his state remedies, failed to show any excuse for his procedural defaults, and

did not assert an actual innocence claim. 

Case 2:10-cv-00775-SRB Document 22 Filed 06/30/11 Page 1 of 4
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 filed timely written objections to the Report and Recommendation to which

Respondents filed a written response. Petitioner objects to the Magistrate Judge's conclusion

that he failed to properly exhaust his claims by failing to raise them as constitutional claims

before the state court. He argues that because he quoted from a federal authority and cited

to the state court decision in State v. Wall, 212 Ariz. 1, 126 P.3d 148 (2006), these citations

were sufficient to the put the Arizona courts on notice that he was raising a federal claim.

He also asserts that because he mentioned the protection of his due process rights in his

Petition for Review to the Arizona Supreme Court on his direct appeal that he did include an

assertion that the failure to instruct on the lesser included offense was a federal constitutional

claim. Finally, Petitioner argues that he did not knowingly and intelligently waive any

claims in his Petition for Post-Conviction Relief proceedings in the state court because his

lawyer didn't inform him and his lack of knowledge amounted to ineffective assistance by

his counsel. Finally, the objection contains the statement, "A constitutional violation has

resulted in the conviction of one who is actual innocent." 

The response to the objections notes, as did the Magistrate Judge, that the presentation

of the claim for failure to instruct on the lesser included offense of theft was presented to the

state court as a state claim. The mere references to a federal case and to a state case that cites

that federal case were insufficient to alert the state appellate court that Petitioner was raising

a federal due process claim. Respondents also note, as did the Magistrate Judge, that the

mere reference to "due process" in the Petition for Review to the Arizona Supreme Court

cannot constitute a proper exhaustion of a federal claim based on its failure to say whether

the reference was to the federal or state constitution and because proper exhaustion requires

it to be raised at every level of review and not for the first time on Petition for Review to the

Arizona Supreme Court. The response also notes that with respect to Petitioner's claim that

ineffective assistance of counsel was the cause of his procedural default, that claim must be

fairly presented to the state court in order to satisfy the requirements for exhaustion.

Edwards v. Carpenter, 529 U.S. 446, 453 (2000). Petitioner made no assertion of ineffective

assistance of counsel in the Arizona courts and cannot raise it for the first time here. Finally,

Case 2:10-cv-00775-SRB Document 22 Filed 06/30/11 Page 2 of 4
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 -

the response notes that a claim of actual innocence without more does not meet the

Petitioner's burden of establishing actual innocence to excuse procedural default. 

After a de novo review of the record in this case, the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendations, the objections and the response to the objections, the Court finds itself

in agreement with the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge in this case. The

Court finds that Petitioner has procedurally defaulted both his claim that his federal

constitutional rights were violated by the trial court's failure to give a jury instruction on a

lesser included offense and that his federal constitutional rights under Apprendi v. New

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) were violated by his sentence. Neither claim was fairly

presented to the state court as a federal claim. With respect to the sentencing claim, Petitioner

failed to seek review of the trial court's denial of his Petition for Post-Conviction Relief with

the Arizona Court of Appeals. Finally, no showing of cause and prejudice has been made

or is even alleged to have been made by Petitioner. Petitioner's bare assertion that he is

actually innocent is insufficient to avoid the procedural default. Because Plaintiff can no

longer return to state court to attempt to exhaust, the Petition must be dismissed with

prejudice.

IT IS ORDERED overruling the objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation as the order

of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

is dismissed with prejudice.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:10-cv-00775-SRB Document 22 Filed 06/30/11 Page 3 of 4
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 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability be denied because

jurists of reason would not find it debatable whether this Court was correct in its procedural

ruling.

DATED this 30th day of June, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-00775-SRB Document 22 Filed 06/30/11 Page 4 of 4