Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02012/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02012-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Sean A. Englbrecht, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora Schriro; Arizona Attorney General,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 07-2012-PHX-MHM (DKD)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE MARY H. MURGUIA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

Sean Englbrecht filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on October 17, 2007,

challenging his convictions on two counts of attempted sexual conduct with a minor, and the

imposition of a twelve-year term on the first count, followed by a 99-year probationary term.

He argues that his constitutional rights were violated as follows: (1) the trial judge, not a

jury, determined the existence of aggravating factors; (2) counsel failed to object to certain

omissions in the indictment and plea agreement and to Englbrecht’s sentence; (3) neither the

indictment nor the plea agreement mentioned sentence enhancement statutes; and (4) the

clemency board was illegally comprised. Respondents contend that the petition is untimely.

The Court agrees and recommends that the petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice.

 Following the entry of his guilty plea, Englbrecht was sentenced on May 9, 2003

(Doc. #12, Exh B, C). On August 15, 2006, more than three years after he was sentenced,

he filed a notice of post-conviction relief (Id., Exh E). The trial court found the notice was

untimely filed, and on August 23, 2006, dismissed the post-conviction proceedings (Id., Exh

Case 2:07-cv-02012-MHM Document 16 Filed 05/14/08 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 -

F). As part of his motion for reconsideration, Englbrecht alleged Apprendi violations;

Englbecht’s motion for reconsideration was also denied (Id., Exh G, H, I). In his petition for

review to the court of appeals, Englbrecht challenged the trial court’s ruling that his notice

of post-conviction relief was untimely; the court of appeals denied review (Id., Exh J, K).

On January 10, 2006, in separate proceedings, the Arizona Board of Clemency voted

not to recommend a commutation of his sentence (Id., Exh L). On October 30, 2006,

Englbrecht filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in state court, alleging a due process

violation resulting from the composition of the clemency board (Id., Exh M). On November

16, 2006, the trial court dismissed the petition, finding that because the board was not a party

to the criminal action, Englbrecht’s claim was not one upon which relief could be granted

under Rule 32 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure (Id., Exh N). In his petition for

review, Englbrecht challenged the trial court’s ruling that his petition was not properly filed

under Rule 32, and asserted that the composition of the board was illegal; the court of appeals

denied review (Id., Exh O, P).

Englbrecht was required to file his federal petition within one year of “the date on

which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the

time for seeking such review.” See 28 U.S. C. § 2254(d)(1). Because he pleaded guilty, and

was entitled to file an “of-right” post-conviction relief proceeding under Rule 32.1 of the

Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, the one-year period of limitations did not begin to run

until the conclusion of the Rule 32 proceeding and a review of that proceeding, or until the

expiration of the time for seeking such proceeding or review. See Summers v. Schriro, 481

F.3d 710, 711 (9th Cir. 2007). In this case, his conviction became final on August 8, 2003,

when the opportunity to initiate his “of-right” post-conviction proceedings expired. Id.

Absent any statutory tolling, his petition was due on August 8, 2004. Because he had no

"properly filed application for state post-conviction or other collateral review" pending which

would have tolled this one-year limitations period, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), there was no

statutory tolling. His August 15, 2006 post-conviction petition could not restart the

Case 2:07-cv-02012-MHM Document 16 Filed 05/14/08 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 -

limitations period, once it had lapsed. See Ferguson v. Palmateer, 321 F.3d 820, 823 (9th Cir.

2003). In addition, he has not shown that external forces, rather than his lack of due

diligence, accounted for his failure to file a timely petition. See Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d

1104, 1107 (9th Cir. 1999). There is no evidence that he diligently pursued his rights and that

some "extraordinary circumstance stood in his way." See Pace v. DiGiguglielmo, 544 U.S.

408, 418. (2005).

In his Reply, Englbrecht asserts that “[i]nmates who know nothing about the law have

no way of finding out changes in when to file a pleading, or how, without the assistance of

other inmates...In Petitioner’s case, he had to find an inmate with legal knowledge before he

could file for collateral review” (Doc. #15 at 4). Neither Englbrecht’s pro se prisoner status

nor his lack of knowledge of the law are extraordinary circumstances sufficient to entitle him

to equitable tolling of the limitations period. See Shoemate v. Norris, 390 F.3d 595, 598 (8th

Cir. 2004). In any event, the record reflects that Englbrecht was advised by the trial court

of “all pertinent constitutional rights and rights of review,” which would have included the

right to file a Rule 32 petition for collateral review and the time limitations on such filing.

See Doc. #12, Exh B, Minute Entry of Change of Plea, March 31, 2003.

IT IS RECOMMENDED that Sean Englbrecht’s petition for writ of habeas corpus

be denied and dismissed with prejudice (Doc. #1).

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. The

parties shall have ten days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within

which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules

72, 6(a), 6(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have ten days within

which to file a response to the objections. Failure timely to file objections to the Magistrate

Judge's Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and

Recommendation by the district court without further review. See United States v. ReynaCase 2:07-cv-02012-MHM Document 16 Filed 05/14/08 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 -

Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure timely to file objections to any factual

determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right to

appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 13th day of May, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-02012-MHM Document 16 Filed 05/14/08 Page 4 of 4