Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-00746/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-00746-2/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 

John Francis Ree, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-13-00746-TUC-RM

ORDER 

 The Court previously issued an Order (Doc. 18) partially adopting Magistrate 

Judge Leslie A. Bowman’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 17). In the Order, the 

Court requested supplemental briefing concerning the impact of Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. 

Ct. 1309 (2012), on the above-entitled case. After review of the supplemental briefing 

and further review of the record, the Court finds that Martinez is inapplicable because 

Petitioner had a constitutional right to counsel during his of-right post-conviction review 

proceeding. In Arizona, a defendant who pleads guilty in a non-capital case waives his 

right to a direct appeal, and Rule 32 proceedings become the sole available avenue for 

exercising the defendant’s constitutional right to appellate review. Arizona v. Pruett, 912 

P.2d 1357, 1359-60 (Ariz. App. 1995). Therefore, such a defendant “is constitutionally 

entitled to the effective assistance of counsel in his first petition for post-conviction 

relief.” Id. at 1360. 

 Because Petitioner had a constitutional right to counsel during his of-right postconviction review proceeding, Judge Bowman’s Report and Recommendation correctly 

Case 4:13-cv-00746-RM Document 21 Filed 06/23/15 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

concluded that Petitioner needed to present the alleged ineffectiveness of post-conviction 

counsel as an independent claim to the state courts before he could use it to establish 

cause for a procedural default of his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. See 

Edwards v. Carpenter, 529 U.S. 446, 452 (2000). Petitioner failed to present a claim of 

ineffective assistance of post-conviction review counsel to the state courts. The Report 

and Recommendation correctly concluded that Petitioner has not established cause and 

prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice to excuse his procedural default. 

Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 

17) in now adopted in full. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 

1) is denied and this case is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is 

directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. Upon review of the record in 

light of the standards for granting a certificate of appealability, the Court concludes that a 

certificate shall not issue because the resolution of the Petition is not debatable among 

reasonable jurists. See 28 U.S.C. §2253(c); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 

(2000). 

 Dated this 18th day of June, 2015. 

Honorable Rosemary Márquez

United States District Judge

Case 4:13-cv-00746-RM Document 21 Filed 06/23/15 Page 2 of 2