Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01541/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01541-0/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

WO RP

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert Earl Kroncke, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-1541-PHX-MHM (MEA)

ORDER

Petitioner Robert Earl Kroncke, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison ComplexEyman, has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(Doc. #1), an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, and a “Motion For Appointment

Of Counsel; Motion To Order Counsel To Communicate With Petitioner By Phone For Good

Cause Shown” (Doc. #3). The Court will grant the Application to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis, deny the Motion for Counsel, and require an answer to the Petition.

I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis indicates that his inmate trust

account balance is less than $25.00. Accordingly, the Application to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis will be granted. See LRCiv 3.5(b).

II. Petition

Petitioner was convicted in Maricopa County Superior Court, case #CR 1994-092084-

Case 2:07-cv-01541-MHM Document 4 Filed 12/07/07 Page 1 of 5
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 -

A, of Auto Theft and was sentenced to a 51⁄2-year term of imprisonment. In his Petition,

Petitioner names Dora Schriro as Respondent and the Arizona Attorney General as an

Additional Respondent. 

 Petitioner presents 11 grounds for habeas corpus relief in which he alleges that his

rights were violated:

(1) “Trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel when refusing to file

a timely notice of post-conviction relief per Kroncke’s request in violation of the [D]ue

[P]rocess [C]lause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and when advising

Kroncke incorrectly that he waived his right to challenge the plea by entering the plea”;

(2) “Structural error resulted from the constructive denial of counsel when trial

counsel failed to appear at the critical stage of trial of plea allocution resulting in a violation

of the Due [P]rocess Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution”; 

(3) “Ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth

Amendment rights to due process and counsel was rendered when trial counsel refused to

read any police reports, refused to familiarize himself with the basic facts of the case, refused

to do any investigation at all, refused to contact any witness in the case, and refused to

prepare a defense if Kroncke insisted on a trial”;

(4) “Ineffective [a]ssistance of trial counsel in violation of the Fourteenth and Sixth

Amendments to the U.S. Constitution was rendered when trial counsel failed to read reports

and insist that Kroncke’s property was returned to him and to insist that the theft victim’s

stolen property was returned to the victim so that Kroncke would not be charged restitution

for such property”;

(5) “Ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment

of the U.S. Constitution was rendered when trial counsel failed to give legal advice which

cause[d] Kroncke to unknowingly enter an involuntary plea”;

(6) “Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and effective counsel

were violated by trial counsel’s false advice that theft is prove[n] by mere failure to inspect

vehicle title or registration before contracting to work on such vehicle”;

Case 2:07-cv-01541-MHM Document 4 Filed 12/07/07 Page 2 of 5
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 -

(7) “The plea was involuntary due to mental incompetence and coer[c]ion, and

thus the plea was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, and denial

of effective counsel”;

(8) “The cumulative errors of counsel as described in Grounds One-Seven above

deprived Kroncke of effective counsel and due process as guaranteed by the Sixth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution”;

(9) “The Trial Court Judge’s attempt to murder Kroncke before the plea allocution

evidenced bias and deprived Kroncke of an impartial judge in violation of the [D]ue

[P]rocess [C]lause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution”; 

(10) “The deprivation of court [a]ccess violated the First and Fourteenth

Amendments to the U.S. Constitution excusing any untimeliness”;

(11) “The state trial court lacked jurisdiction due to the state court findings of law

that Kroncke has no standing to invoke any constitutional rights in connection with this

criminal case against him, thus rendering all convictions void and in violation of all U.S.

constitutional rights which the state courts ruled Kroncke had no standing to invoke.”

Petitioner alleges that the issues in all of his grounds have been presented to the

Arizona Supreme Court. 

The Court will require Respondents to answer the Petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

III. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

In his “Motion For Appointment Of Counsel; Motion To Order Counsel To

Communicate With Petitioner By Phone For Good Cause Shown” (Doc. #3), Petitioner asks

the Court to assign counsel to him and to order counsel to conduct all communication with

Kroncke by phone. 

"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

Case 2:07-cv-01541-MHM Document 4 Filed 12/07/07 Page 3 of 5
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 -

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. 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. 

IV. 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

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 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, filed with the Petition,

is granted.

(2) Petitioner’s “Motion For Appointment Of Counsel; Motion To Order Counsel

To Communicate With Petitioner By Phone For Good Cause Shown” (Doc. #3) is denied.

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

Case 2:07-cv-01541-MHM Document 4 Filed 12/07/07 Page 4 of 5
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 -

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

pursuant to Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

(4) 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.

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

answer.

(6) 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 6th day of December, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01541-MHM Document 4 Filed 12/07/07 Page 5 of 5