Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00010/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00010-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Royce J. Dewakuku, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-0010-PHX-NVW (ECV)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE NEIL V. WAKE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

BACKGROUND

Petitioner Royce J. Dewakuku has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Doc. #1. Following a jury trial in Maricopa County Superior

Court in January 2003, Petitioner was convicted of one count of aggravated assault, a class

three dangerous felony under Arizona law. Doc. #19, Exh. J at 114, Exh. K at 3. On March

18, 2003, Petitioner was sentenced to 10 years in prison. Doc. #19, Exh. K at 21.

Petitioner appealed, and on July 17, 2003, through counsel, filed an Opening Brief in

the Arizona Court of Appeals. Doc. #19, Exh. B. Petitioner raised two claims: 1) that he was

entitled to a jury trial on the issue of whether he was on release when he committed the

offense; and 2) that the State improperly exercised its peremptory strikes. Id. On June 29,

2004, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but vacated Petitioner’s sentence and

remanded the case for further proceedings. Doc. #19, Exh. A. The Arizona Supreme Court

Case 2:07-cv-00010-NVW Document 20 Filed 03/17/08 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

- 2 -

subsequently remanded the case back to the Arizona Court of Appeals for reconsideration.

Doc. #19, Exh. C. Upon reconsideration, the Court of Appeals issued a new decision in

which it denied the appeal and affirmed Petitioner’s conviction and sentence after concluding

that it erred in the original decision. Id.

Petitioner filed a Notice of Post-Conviction Relief on February 15, 2006. Doc. #19,

Exh. D. Even though it appears the trial court appointed counsel to represent Petitioner in

state post-conviction proceedings, Petitioner filed a pro se Petition for Post-Conviction Relief

(titled “Habeas Corpus Petition for Reasons Set Forth Herein by Petitioner”) on October 3,

2006. Doc. #19, Exh. D, E. The State filed a Response to Petition for Post-Conviction

Relief on November 21, 2006. Doc. #19, Exh. F. On December 22, 2007, the trial court

denied the petition after finding that the four claims raised by Petitioner were all waived and

precluded because they either should have been raised on direct appeal but were not, or were

already decided on direct appeal. Doc. #19, Exh. G. The court also addressed the substance

of Petitioner’s claims and found that they were without merit. Id. Petitioner did not seek

review in the Arizona Court of Appeals or the Arizona Supreme Court. Doc. #19, Exh. H.

On January 3, 2007, Petitioner filed his habeas petition in this court. Petitioner alleges

three grounds for relief: 1) that his trial lawyer provided ineffective assistance of counsel by

failing to adequately prepare and present a proper defense at trial; 2) that the jury verdict was

against the weight of the evidence; and 3) that his trial lawyer was ineffective for failing to

present mitigating circumstances at sentencing. Doc. #1. The court screened the petition and

directed Respondents to file an answer. Doc. #5. Less than a month after filing his petition,

Petitioner filed a “Habeas Corpus Traverse,” which appears to contain supplemental

arguments in support of his petition. Respondents filed an Answer to Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus on October 12, 2007. Doc. #19. Petitioner has not filed a reply.

The Arizona Court of Appeals in its Memorandum Decision on direct review

summarized the facts of this case as follows:

The defendant and a companion approached two women, R.N. and

E.O., who were sitting in a neighborhood park. The women were relaxing

after playing basketball. The lights on the court were off, but there were lights

Case 2:07-cv-00010-NVW Document 20 Filed 03/17/08 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

- 3 -

on in other areas of the park. The defendant asked the women if either knew

a man named Kerwin. R.N. said she did. However, when asked by the

defendant about Kerwin’s whereabouts, R.N. said she did not know. After

several failed attempts to obtain Kerwin’s location from R.N., the defendant

pulled out a knife and held it to R.N.’s neck. After several seconds, the

defendant let her go and he and his companion left. R.N. and E.O. left the park

and contacted the police. The defendant was promptly arrested and charged

by information with aggravated assault, a class 3 felony.

Doc. #19, Exh. A. 

DISCUSSION

Respondents contend in their answer that Petitioner has procedurally defaulted on his

three grounds for relief by failing to exhaust his state court remedies. Respondents further

argue that the grounds for relief are without merit. Having failed to file a reply, Petitioner

has not addressed the procedural default issue. 

A. Procedural Default 

A state prisoner must exhaust his remedies in state court before petitioning for a writ

of habeas corpus in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1) & (c); Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S.

364, 365-66 (1995); McQueary v. Blodgett, 924 F.2d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 1991). To properly

exhaust state remedies, a petitioner must fairly present his claims to the state's highest court

in a procedurally appropriate manner. O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 848 (1999). A

petitioner "must give the state courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues

by invoking one complete round of the State's established appellate review process." Id. at

845. In Arizona, a petitioner must fairly present his claims to the Arizona Court of Appeals

by properly pursuing them through the state’s direct appeal process or through appropriate

post-conviction relief. Swoopes v. Sublett, 196 F.3d 1008, 1010 (9th Cir. 1999); Roettgen

v. Copeland, 33 F.3d 36, 38 (9th Cir. 1994). 

A claim has been fairly presented if the petitioner has described both the operative

facts and the federal legal theory on which the claim is based. Bland v. Cal. Dep't of

Corrections, 20 F.3d 1469, 1472-73 (9th Cir.1994), overruled on other grounds by Schell v.

Witek, 218 F.3d 1017, 1025 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); Tamalini v. Stewart, 249 F.3d 895,

898-99 (9th Cir. 2001). "Our rule is that a state prisoner has not 'fairly presented' (and thus

Case 2:07-cv-00010-NVW Document 20 Filed 03/17/08 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

- 4 -

exhausted) his federal claims in state court unless he specifically indicated to that court that

those claims were based on federal law." Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668 (9th Cir.

2000), amended on other grounds, 247 F.3d 904 (9th Cir. 2001). "If a petitioner fails to alert

the state court to the fact that he is raising a federal constitutional claim, his federal claim is

unexhausted regardless of its similarity to the issues raised in state court." Johnson v. Zenon,

88 F.3d 828, 830 (9th Cir. 1996).

If a petition contains claims that were never fairly presented in state court, the federal

court must determine whether state remedies remain available to the petitioner. See Rose v.

Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 519-20 (1982); Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 268-270 (1989)

(O'Connor, J., concurring). If remedies are still available in state court, the federal court may

dismiss the petition without prejudice pending the exhaustion of state remedies. Id.

However, if the court finds that the petitioner would have no state remedy were he to return

to the state court, then his claims are considered procedurally defaulted. Teague v. Lane, 489

U.S. 288, 298-99 (1989); see also Sandgathe v. Maass, 314 F.3d 371, 376 (9th Cir. 2002) (a

defendant's claim is procedurally defaulted when it is clear that the state court would hold

the claim procedurally barred). The federal court will not consider these claims unless the

petitioner can demonstrate that a miscarriage of justice would result, or establish cause for

his noncompliance and actual prejudice. See Dretke v. Haley, 124 S.Ct. 1847, 1851-52

(2004); Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 321 (1995); Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722,

750-51 (1991); Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 495-96 (1986).

The three grounds for relief Petitioner raises here in his habeas petition were not

included in his direct appeal. As a result, Petitioner did not exhaust his claims by way of the

direct appeal. Therefore, the only way the claims could have been properly exhausted is if

they were presented to the state court on post-conviction relief. Petitioner appears to have

included in his pro se state petition for post-conviction relief the grounds raised here in his

habeas petition. In the state petition, Petitioner argued that his trial attorney provided

ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to his preparation and presentation of a defense

at trial. Doc. #19, Exh. E at 8-10. Petitioner also argued in his state petition that the verdict

Case 2:07-cv-00010-NVW Document 20 Filed 03/17/08 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

1

 The time has passed to seek post-conviction relief in state court under Rule 32.4(a)

of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure and Petitioner has not shown that any of the

exceptions to the time limits under Rule 32.1(d), (e), (f), (g) or (h) apply to him.

- 5 -

was against the weight of the evidence. Doc. #19, Exh. E at 14-16. Finally, Petitioner

argued that his lawyer’s failure to present mitigating evidence at sentencing constituted

ineffective assistance. Doc. #19, Exh. E at 9. 

However, even though Petitioner raised the three grounds for relief in his state

petition, he failed to seek review beyond the trial court level. After the trial court dismissed

the state post-conviction petition on December 22, 2006, Petitioner did not file a petition for

review to the Arizona Court of Appeals. Doc. #19, Exh. H (docket reflects nothing filed after

minute entry dismissing the petition for post-conviction relief). Petitioner therefore failed

to “give the state courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking

one complete round of the State's established appellate review process." O'Sullivan, 526 U.S.

at 845. 

By failing to fairly present his grounds for relief in the state court, Petitioner has failed

to exhaust his state court remedies. Moreover, Petitioner would no longer have a remedy if

he returned to the state court.1

 As a result, his claims are procedurally defaulted.

Additionally, Petitioner has not alleged cause for the default and actual prejudice, nor has he

shown a miscarriage of justice to overcome the procedural default. Having concluded that

Petitioner’s claims are procedurally defaulted, the court need not consider the merits. The

court will therefore recommend that the petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED:

That the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc.

#1) be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment. The

parties shall have ten days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation

Case 2:07-cv-00010-NVW Document 20 Filed 03/17/08 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

- 6 -

within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72. Thereafter, the parties have ten days within

which to file a response to the objections. Failure to timely file objections to the

Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the

Report and Recommendation by the district court without further review. See United

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to timely file

objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a

waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order of

judgement entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 72.

DATED this 17th day of March, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-00010-NVW Document 20 Filed 03/17/08 Page 6 of 6