Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01514/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01514-0/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 TERMPSREF - 1 -

WO RP

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Rogelio Sanchez Orozco, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-1514-PHX-JAT (MEA)

ORDER

On July 16, 2010, Petitioner Rogelio Sanchez Orozco, who is confined in the Arizona

State Prison Complex-Florence, filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1), a “Motion For Appointment Of Counsel” (Doc. 3), and a

“Motion For Court Appointed Interpreter” (Doc. 4). The $5.00 filing fee has been paid. 

The Court will deny Petitioner’s Motions without prejudice and call for an answer to

the Petition.

I. Petition

Named as Respondent in the Petition is Charles L. Ryan. The Attorney General of

the State of Arizona is named in the Petition as an Additional Respondent. 

In his Petition, Petitioner challenges his August 20, 2003 judgment of conviction

entered in the Maricopa County Superior Court in matter CR-2003-005560-001 DT for the

following counts: (1) Sexual Conduct; (2) Sexual Conduct; (3) Sexual Abuse; (4) Child

Case 2:10-cv-01514-JAT Document 5 Filed 08/24/10 Page 1 of 6
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 TERMPSREF - 2 -

Molestation; (5) Sexual Conduct; (6) Sexual Conduct; (7) Sexual Conduct; (8) Child

Molestation; (9) Child Molestation; (10) Sexual Conduct; (11) Sexual Conduct; and

(12) Child Molestation. 

Petitioner alleges he was sentenced to terms of imprisonment for these counts as

follows: (1) 20 years; (2) 20 years; (3) 5 years; (4) 17 years; (5) 20 years; (6) 20 years; (7)

20 years; (8) 17 years; (9) 17 years; (10) 20 years; (11) 20 years; and (12) 17 years.

Petitioner presents 11 grounds in the Petition in support of his request for habeas

relief:

(1) “Whether, the State’s trial court erred in denying the

Petitioner’s timely motion for change of counsel, thus

violat[ing] the Petitioner’s right to effective assistance of

counsel under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments of

the United States Const. And Art. 2, §§ 4 and 24 of the AZ.

Const. where Petitioner requested change of counsel prior to

retrial?”;

(2) “Whether the Petitioner’s trial counsel ineffectively

represented him, when his defense counsel failed to investigate,

and to produce evidence available and material to an issue in

support of defense requested by the Petitioner?”;

(3) “Whether the Petitioner’s trial attorney ineffectively

represented [] the Petitioner - When that counsel failed to call to

testify a relevant, competent, available, and favorable witness

for his defense, thus such counsel’s failure violated Petitioner’s

U.S. Constitutional Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment[] rights

to ‘Compulsory Process Clause’ to compel the attendance of

witnesses in his own behalf?”; 

(4) “Whether the Petitioner’s trial counsel ineffectively

represented him - When that counsel failed to call at retrial to

a[n] exculpatory or al[i]bi witness available, and competent to

testify in his behalf, thus that trial’s appointed counsel violated

the Petitioner’s U.S. Constitutional Sixth and Fourteenth

Amendment[] rights to competent counsel and his right to

‘Compulsory Process Clause’ to compel the attendance of

witnesses in his behalf[?]”;

(5) “The Petitioner[’s] State[] conviction or sentence violated

the United States treaty, a federal law under the Vienna

Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR) - When the

Petitioner was detained, and arrested by (state) police, and

police denied his right to access to a consular officer, upon

Petitioner’s request”;

Case 2:10-cv-01514-JAT Document 5 Filed 08/24/10 Page 2 of 6
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 TERMPSREF - 3 -

(6) “Whether the Petitioner’s trial counsel was ineffective,

and denied the Petitioner’s right to effective assistance of

counsel under Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the

United States Constitution, and Art. 2 §§ 4, and 24 of the Ariz.

Constitution[?]”;

(7) “Whether the Petitioner’s trial attorney rendered

ineffective assistance of counsel in waiving the Petitioner’s 5th

Amendment right to remain silent, self incrimination, without

Petitioner’s consent[?]”;

(8) “Whether the Petitioner’s trial attorney rendered the

ineffective assistance of counsel - When that counsel fail[ed] to

object at trial to prosecutor misconduct at closing arguments?”;

(9) “Whether the Petitioner’s Constitutional or fundamental

rights of Compulsory Process, Confrontation, due process, and

assistance of counsel embodied in Fift[h], Sixth, and Fourteenth

Amendment[s] of the United States Constitution and Arizona

Constitution were violated - When his trial counsel fail[ed] to

conduct a pretrial investigation, and raise at trial relevant

evidence to explain [to] the jury why the alleged victims, and

alleged victim’s mother (state’s witnesses) fabricate the sexual

allegations?”;

(10) “Whether the Petitioner’s conviction or sentence was in

violation of the Unite[d] States Federal Constitution, and Ariz.

Const. - Where the Petitioner’s appellate counsel rendered the

ineffective assistance of counsel for counsel’s failure to raise

and pursue the more potential, and obvious issues on the

Petitioner’s direct appeal, issues of Constitutional importance

which required reversal?”; and,

(11) “Whether the Petitioner’s trial counsel was ineffective in

failing to raise a pre-trial challenge to the State’s Grand Jury or

Grand Juror[?] This violated Petitioner’s procedural right, and

right to counsel, as guaranteed by Amendments 6 and 14 to the

U.S. Constitution, whether Petitioner’s counsel waived appellate

consideration of the claim?” 

Petitioner affirmatively alleges that he has presented the issues in all of his grounds

to the Arizona Court of Appeals, and that he has presented the issues in Grounds I, II, III, and

IV to the Arizona Supreme Court. The Court will require an answer to the Petition. 

II. Pending Motions

A. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

On July 16, 2010, Petitioner filed a “Motion For Appointment Of Counsel” (Doc. 3),

in which he requests that the Court appoint an experienced counsel for him in this habeas

Case 2:10-cv-01514-JAT Document 5 Filed 08/24/10 Page 3 of 6
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 TERMPSREF - 4 -

proceeding. “Indigent state prisoners applying for habeas corpus relief are not entitled to

appointed counsel unless the circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed

counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations.” Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191,

1196 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Kreiling v. Field, 431 F.2d 638, 640 (9th Cir. 1970); Eskridge

v. Rhay , 345 F.2d 778, 782 (9th Cir. 1965)). However, the Court has discretion to appoint

counsel when “the interests of justice so requires.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2).

Petitioner has not made the necessary showing for appointment of counsel at this time.

Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion will be denied without prejudice. If, at a later date, the

Court determines that an evidentiary hearing is required, counsel will be appointed in

accordance with Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings.

B. Motion for Court Appointed Interpreter

On July 16, 2010, Petitioner also filed a “Motion For Court Appointed Interpreter”

(Doc. 4), in which he requests that the Court appoint a qualified “Spanish-speaking” court

interpreter to assist him in this habeas proceeding. Petitioner’s Motion will be denied

without prejudice. In the event that an evidentiary hearing is held in this matter, Petitioner

may request that a court interpreter be in attendance. 

III. Warnings

A. Address Changes

Petitioner must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with Rule

83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner must not include a motion for other

relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of this

action.

B. Copies

Petitioner must serve Respondents, or counsel if an appearance has been entered, a

copy of every document that he files. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a). Each filing must include a

certificate stating that a copy of the filing was served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d). Also, Petitioner

must submit an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. LRCiv 5.4. Failure to

Case 2:10-cv-01514-JAT Document 5 Filed 08/24/10 Page 4 of 6
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 TERMPSREF - 5 -

comply may result in the filing being stricken without further notice to Petitioner.

C. Possible Dismissal

If Petitioner fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including these

warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to

comply with any order of the Court).

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Petitioner’s “Motion For Appointment Of Counsel” (Doc. 3) and “Motion For

Court Appointed Interpreter” (Doc. 4) are both denied without prejudice.

(2) The Clerk of Court must serve a copy of the Petition (Doc. 1) and this Order

on the Respondent and the Attorney General of the State of Arizona by certified mail

pursuant to Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

(3) Respondents must answer the Petition within 40 days of the date of service.

Respondents must not file a dispositive motion in place of an answer but may file an answer

limited to relevant affirmative defenses, including but not limited to, statute of limitations,

procedural bar, or non-retroactivity. If the answer is limited to affirmative defenses, only

those portions of the record relevant to those defenses need be attached to the answer.

Failure to set forth an affirmative defense in an answer may be treated as a waiver of the

defense. Day v. McDonough, 126 S. Ct. 1675, 1684 (2006). If not limited to affirmative

defenses, the answer must fully comply with all of the requirements of Rule 5 of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases.

(4) Petitioner may file a reply within 30 days from the date of service of the

answer.

//

//

//

//

Case 2:10-cv-01514-JAT Document 5 Filed 08/24/10 Page 5 of 6
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 TERMPSREF - 6 -

(5) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey pursuant to Rules

72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for further proceedings and a report and

recommendation. 

DATED this 23rd day of August, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-01514-JAT Document 5 Filed 08/24/10 Page 6 of 6