Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00328/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00328-0/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

 Clerk’s record number.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Sean Del Morris, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 05-0328-PHX-NVW (GEE)

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

On December 22, 2004, Sean Del Morris, an inmate confined in the Arizona State Prison

Complex in Douglas, AZ, filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to Title 28,

United States Code, Section 2254. (Petition.); [#1]1

 The petitioner asserts the following

grounds for relief: (1) the evidence was insufficient for felony-murder; (2) the prosecution’s

sole eyewitness committed perjury; (3) the trial judge applied the wrong burden of proof; and

(4) the trial judge gave erroneous jury instructions. Id. Before the court are the Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus, the respondents’ Answer and the petitioner’s Reply.

Pursuant to the Rules of Practice of this Court, this matter was referred to Magistrate

Judge Edmonds for report and recommendation. The Magistrate Judge recommends the District

Court, after its independent review of the record, enter an order dismissing the Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus. It is time-barred.

Case 2:05-cv-00328-NVW Document 15 Filed 10/26/05 Page 1 of 4
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 -

Summary of the Case

Morris was convicted after jury trial of first-degree felony murder and armed robbery.

(Respondents’ Answer, Exhibit A.) The court sentenced Morris to life imprisonment for the

felony murder and seven and one-half years’ imprisonment for the armed robbery, the sentences

to run concurrently. Id. 

 Morris appealed his convictions and sentences. Id. He argued (1) the trial court erred

in explaining to the jury why his interview with the police was edited; (2) the reasonable doubt

instruction was constitutionally deficient; (3) the trial court erred in not admitting certain

portions of the defendant’s videotaped statement to police pursuant to Ariz. R. Evid. 106. Id.

The court of appeals affirmed Morris’ convictions and sentences. Id. The Arizona Supreme

Court denied review on October 26, 1999. (Respondents’ Answer, Exhibit B.)

On May 27, 1999, Morris filed a notice of post-conviction relief. (Respondents’ Answer,

Exhibit C.) Morris argued, inter alia, that the evidence introduced at trial was insufficient and

his trial counsel was ineffective. Id., Exhibit D. The trial court denied the petition on

September 1, 2000. Id. Morris did not appeal. Id., Exhibit E.

On June 14, 2004, Morris filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus with the Arizona

Supreme Court. Id., Exhibit G. The court denied the petition on July 14, 2004. Id. Morris

filed a motion for reconsideration which the court denied on September 29, 2004. Id.

On December 22, 2004, Morris filed the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2254. (Petition.) The respondents filed a

Motion to Dismiss on March 23, 2005, arguing the petition was time-barred. This court issued

an order to show cause asking why the respondents filed a dispositive motion rather than an

Answer as the court had previously instructed. The respondents filed a response asking that the

motion be redesignated an Answer provided the court would allow them to amend that Answer

if the court rejected their statute of limitations argument. Pursuant to court order, the Motion

to Dismiss was redesignated an Answer. Morris filed a reply on May 23, 2005. 

Case 2:05-cv-00328-NVW Document 15 Filed 10/26/05 Page 2 of 4
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 -

Discussion

The writ of habeas corpus affords relief to persons in custody in violation of the

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The petition for writ

of habeas corpus must be filed within the applicable statute of limitations or it will be dismissed.

Id. The statute of limitations reads in pertinent part as follows:

 (1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of

habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State

court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of--

(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of

direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review;

 * * *

(2) The time during which a properly filed application for State

post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent

judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward any period of

limitation under this subsection.

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

The instant issues were discoverable at the time of trial. Accordingly, the statute of

limitations for this petition is determined by section 2244(d)(1)(A). Morris’ judgment became

final on January 24, 2000, after his appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court was denied (October

26, 1999) and after the time for filing a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court had passed (90

days). See Spitsyn v. Moore, 345 F.3d 796, 798 (9th Cir. 2003). The statute of limitations did

not begin to run immediately, however, because Morris’ petition for post-conviction relief was

pending at this time. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(d)(2). Tolling continued until the petition was

denied on September 1, 2000. See Welch v. Carey, 350 F.3d 1079, 1083 (9th Cir. 2003), cert.

denied, 541 U.S. 1078 (2004). The one-year statute of limitations began to run on September

2, 2000, and ended on Tuesday, September 4, 2001. See Spitsyn, 345 F.3d at 798; Smith v.

Duncan, 297 F.3d. 809, 813 (9th Cir. 2002); FED.R.CIV.P. 6(a) (The 1st was a Saturday, the 2nd

was a Sunday and the 3rd was Labor Day.). The instant petition was filed on December 22,

2004. It is time-barred.

Case 2:05-cv-00328-NVW Document 15 Filed 10/26/05 Page 3 of 4
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 -

Morris argues he is entitled to statutory tolling during the period of time that his habeas

petition was before the Arizona Supreme Court. (Reply.) This petition, however, was not filed

until June 14, 2004. By that time, his one-year limitations period had already expired. 

Morris further argues there is no statute of limitations for the filing of a petition for writ

of habeas corpus in state court. Id. This may be so, but the state’s limitations rule does not

affect the federal statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Ferguson v. Palmateer, 321

F.3d 820, 823 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 924 (2003). The federal limitations period

is not renewed even if the petitioner files a timely state petition for post-conviction relief. Id.

RECOMMENDATION

The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, after its independent review

of the record, enter an order 

DISMISSING the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. [#1]

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636 (b), any party may serve and file written objections within

10 days of being served with a copy of this report and recommendation. If objections are not

timely filed, they may be deemed waived. If objections are filed, the parties should use the

following case number: CIV 05-0328-PHX-NVW.

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this report and recommendation to the petitioner

and the respondents.

DATED this 26th day of October, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-00328-NVW Document 15 Filed 10/26/05 Page 4 of 4