Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01738/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01738-0/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

 1 Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder, theft, and arson of a structure. He

challenges his sentence imposed for Count One, first degree murder. (Doc. 1.) He maintains

that he is entitled to a new state court sentencing hearing on Count One.

 2 The Court agrees with the Magistrate’s finding that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus is untimely. Regarding statutory tolling, he was 266 days beyond the one

year limitations period set forth by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of

1996 (AEDPA). Furthermore, Petitioner failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to equitable

tolling. Petitioner claims that Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) and Apprendi v.

New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) effectively serve to delay the commencement date of the

limitations period. He also argues that Blakely decided a second substantive rule of

constitutional law requiring a standard of proof for aggravating factors and such rule should

be applied retroactively to cases on collateral review. The Court agrees with Magistrate

Judge Burns that this argument fails. The reference in Blakely to the standard of proof

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Cedric Joseph Rue, )

)

Petitioner, ) CV 08-1738-PHX-PGR (MHB)

)

v. ) ORDER

)

Dora B. Schriro, et al., ) NON-DEATH PENALTY

)

Defendants. ) )

Currently before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Burns (Doc. 14) based on Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254.1

 Having reviewed de novo the Petition, the Report and Recommendation2

Case 2:08-cv-01738-PGR Document 19 Filed 02/23/10 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

required for aggravating factors is not a “new” rule, as precedent was available at the time

of Petitioner’s sentencing. See U.S. v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148, 156 (1997). Furthermore,

assuming arguendo that Blakely did announce such a new rule of constitutional law, such a

rule must have been made “retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review...” in order

for the one year limitations period under AEDPA to apply. 28 U.S.C. §2244(d)(1)(C).

Petitioner has failed to establish such retroactive applicability. Finally, the Petitioner had the

opportunity, but did not, raise on direct appeal the trial court’s failure to make sufficient

findings of fact to support the natural life sentence imposed. 

2

of Magistrate Judge Burns, and the Petitioner's objections thereto, and in light of the Court’s

finding that the Petitioner's objections do not have any merit,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation

(Doc. 14) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED by the Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

(Doc. 1) is DISMISSED and DENIED with prejudice. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall close this case.

DATED this 22nd day of February, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-01738-PGR Document 19 Filed 02/23/10 Page 2 of 2