Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-04018/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-04018-1/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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Harold Travis Lyons, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Judy Frigo, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV05-4018-PHX-SRB

ORDER

On December 12, 2005, Petitioner filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus raising

seven grounds for habeas relief. Petitioner asserted:

1. ineffective assistance of trial counsel;

2. ineffective assistance of appellate counsel;

3. denial of due process because the trial court failed to hold a hearing before

precluding a witness from testifying, failed to act on counsel’s conflict of interest, and

altered jury instructions;

4. denial of due process by cumulative error;

5. actual innocence;

6. denial of meaningful access to the courts by denial of hybrid representation; and

7. insufficient evidence.

Case 2:05-cv-04018-SRB Document 28 Filed 09/04/07 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 -

Respondents answered on May 11, 2006, and Petitioner filed a reply on July 11, 2006.

 On March 26, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued his Report and Recommendation. The

Magistrate Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to fairly present to the state court and

therefore procedurally defaulted on the claims set out in his sixth ground for habeas relief.

With respect to that part of his third ground that he was denied a hearing on a request to call

a witness, the Magistrate Judge concluded that that claim was disposed of by the state court

on an independent and adequate state ground and was thus procedurally barred. With respect

to the remaining two parts of his third ground and grounds two, four, five and seven, the

Magistrate Judge found that those claims were also disposed of by the state court on the

independent and adequate state ground of Arizona’s preclusion bar and were thus

procedurally barred. 

 The Magistrate Judge identified several claims within Petitioner’s ground one for

ineffective assistance of trial counsel. With the exception of the claim of ineffective

assistance of trial counsel regarding failure to interview potential witnesses and failure to

argue the jury’s expectation to hear testimony from a listed witness, the Magistrate Judge

concluded that the remaining claims were disposed of by the state court on the independent

and adequate state ground of Arizona’s preclusion bar and were thus procedurally barred.

With respect to the only two properly exhausted claims relating to ineffective assistance of

trial counsel, the Magistrate Judge concluded that those claims were without merit and

should be denied. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus be dismissed with prejudice on all grounds except those specifically identified

grounds of ineffective assistance of trial counsel which had been exhausted and as to those

two grounds he recommended that the petition be denied.

After receiving several extensions of time, the Petitioner filed his objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on August 8, 2007. Petitioner raises three

objections, all of which relate to the same factual argument. The Information filed against

Petitioner in state court alleged that “on or about the 20th day of February, 1998, without

lawful authority, [Petitioner] knowingly, controlled Mark Cassarino’s truck, of a value of

Case 2:05-cv-04018-SRB Document 28 Filed 09/04/07 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 -

$3,000 or more, but less than $25,000, knowing or having reason to know that the property

was stolen.” Petitioner attached to his objections a copy of the title to the truck at issue. The

titled owner is Scot Cassarino. Mark Cassarino’s trial testimony was that he had purchased

the truck in 1993 from a company in Oregon and used it for his work as a carpenter. At the

time the truck was stolen his carpentry tools were in a box in the back. Concerning the title

to the truck, he testified that it was in his brother’s name, Scot Cassarino, because he had

originally bought the truck with his brother, Scot.

Petitioner attached great significance to the fact that the Information charged him with

controlling Mark Cassarino’s truck when it was titled and registered in the name of Scot

Cassarino. He alleges that the state’s failure to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the

truck belonged to Mark Cassarino demonstrates Petitioner’s actual innocence to the crime

of theft alleged against him. 

There is no legal significance to the fact that the Information charged him with

controlling Mark Cassarino’s truck but the title shows that Scot Cassarino was the registered

owner. The elements for the crime of theft alleged against Petitioner, which had to be proved

beyond a reasonable doubt, were that; 1) Petitioner, without lawful authority, knowingly

controlled the property of another, and 2) Petitioner knew or had reason to know that the

property was stolen. See, A.R.S. §13-1802 (A)(5). The elements of the crime do not require

proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the registered owner of the property Petitioner was

accused of having controlled. Whether Scot Cassarino or Mark Cassarino was the registered

owner of the vehicle is of no relevance to whether the Petitioner was guilty of the crime

charged. Evidence that Mark Cassarino was named in the Information as the owner but that

Scot Cassarino was the title holder does not show Petitioner’s innocence. This factual

argument drives each of the three objections made by Petitioner. No other objections to any

of the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge have been raised. 

IT IS OVERRULING Petitioner’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation.

Case 2:05-cv-04018-SRB Document 28 Filed 09/04/07 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 adopting the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge as the order of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, except of those portions of ground one asserting

ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on failure to interview potential witnesses and

failure to argue the jury’s expectation to hear testimony from a listed witness, Petitioner’s

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as to the two

grounds of ineffective assistance of trial counsel excepted above is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 31st day of August, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-04018-SRB Document 28 Filed 09/04/07 Page 4 of 4