Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_09-cv-00489/USCOURTS-azd-4_09-cv-00489-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Billy Gene Cummings,

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-489-TUC-RCC (JM)

ORDER

On May 18, 2011, the Honorable Jacqueline Marshall, United States Magistrate

Judge, filed a Report and Recommendation ("Recommendation") in this action. (Doc.21).

The Recommendation advised the Court to DENY the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

by a Person in State Custody pursuant to Title 28, U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc.1). 

Petitioner objected to the Recommendation, arguing that it did not acknowledge that

his decision not to testify was due to his attorney’s failure to explain that his prior

convictions would be sanitized. (Doc. 24 at 2). Petitioner also argues for the first time that

he was confused as to whether his testimony was necessary to establish the defenses of

consent and prostitution. Id. at 3.

Contrary to Petitioner’s assertions, the Recommendation specifically considered

Petitioner’s first argument. (Doc. 21 at 10:10-13). As to the second argument, it is precluded,

and Petitioner acknowledged in his Petitioner that “it was clear that Petitioner was going to

need to testify...” (Doc. 1 at 3m ¶ 8).

Case 4:09-cv-00489-RCC Document 26 Filed 07/21/11 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

 

The Court considers the Recommendation (Doc. 21) to be thorough and wellreasoned. After a thorough and de novo review of the record and Petitioner’s objections, the

Court will ADOPT the Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Marshall. Therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Marshall’s

Report and Recommendation (Doc. 21). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitioner’s Petition is DENIED. 

DATED this 20th day of July, 2011.

Case 4:09-cv-00489-RCC Document 26 Filed 07/21/11 Page 2 of 2