Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-00946/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-00946-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Eva Lynn Mayfield, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan; et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 13-946-TUC-DCB (LAB)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Pending before the court is an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus filed on

December 27, 2013, by Eva Lynn Mayfield, an inmate confined in the Arizona State Prison

Complex in Goodyear, Arizona. (Doc. 9) 

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

Judge Bowman for report and recommendation. LRCiv 72.2(a)(2).

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

record, enter an order dismissing the petition. It is time-barred.

Summary of the Case

Mayfield was convicted after a jury trial of “first-degree murder, first-degree burglary,

three counts of aggravated assault, and four counts of kidnapping.” (Doc. 16-2, p. 48) The trial

court sentenced Mayfield to “prison terms totaling natural life plus forty-two years.” Id., p. 49

On direct appeal, Mayfield challenged “the trial court’s denial of her motion to suppress

evidence, its denial of her motion for a judgment of acquittal, its refusal to admit medical

Case 4:13-cv-00946-DCB Document 17 Filed 09/17/14 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 -

records, its admission of other act evidence, and its refusal to admit a witness’s written plea

agreement.” Id. 

The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed Mayfield’s convictions and sentences on

November 14, 2005. (Doc. 16-2, p. 48) The Arizona Supreme Court denied Mayfield’s petition

for review on May 23, 2006. (Doc. 16-3, p. 14) It does not appear that Mayfield filed a petition

for review with the U.S. Supreme Court.

On July 6, 2006, Mayfield filed notice of post-conviction relief. (Doc. 16-3, p. 19)

Appointed counsel was unable to find any meritorious issues, so the court gave Mayfield an

opportunity to file a petition pro se. (Doc. 16-3, pp. 25-28) When Mayfield failed to file a

timely petition, the trial court dismissed the post-conviction relief proceedings on March 21,

2007. (Doc. 16-3, p. 37) 

Over four years later, on September 8, 2011, Mayfield filed a second notice of postconviction relief. (Doc. 16-3, p. 40) The trial court denied Mayfield’s petition on September

28, 2012, holding that her claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel was waived and, in the

alternative, meritless. (Doc. 16-4, pp. 2-8)

On December 24, 2012, Mayfield filed a third notice of post-conviction relief arguing

her post-conviction relief attorney was ineffective for failing to argue that a witness, previously

unavailable, has been found and she is entitled to relief pursuant to Martinez v. Ryan. (Doc. 16-

4, p. 10, pp. 17-18) The trial court dismissed the notice on February 4, 2013. (Doc. 16-4, p. 17)

The Arizona Court of Appeals granted review but denied relief on May 22, 2013. (Doc. 16-4,

p. 28) 

On August 15, 2013, Mayfield filed in this court a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1) She filed the pending amended petition on December

27, 2013. (Doc. 9) She claims (1) she was arrested without a warrant, (2) her medical records

should have been admitted at trial, (3) trial counsel was ineffective for agreeing to consolidate

two cases against her, and (4) the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction for felony

murder. (Doc. 9)

Case 4:13-cv-00946-DCB Document 17 Filed 09/17/14 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 -

On July 10, 2013, the respondents filed an answer arguing among other things that the

petition is time-barred. (Doc. 16) Mayfield did not file a reply. The respondents are correct.

The petition is time-barred.

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. § 2254(a). The petition,

however, must be filed within the applicable statute of limitations or it will be dismissed. 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 “one-year statute of limitations . . . applies to each claim in a habeas

application on an individual basis.” Mardesich v. Cate, 668 F.3d 1164, 1170 (9th Cir. 2012).

The limitation period for each of Mayfield’s claims was triggered on “the date on which

the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for

seeking such review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). 

The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed Mayfield’s convictions and sentences on

November 14, 2005. (Doc. 16-2, p. 48) The Arizona Supreme Court denied Mayfield’s petition

for review on May 23, 2006. (Doc. 16-3, p. 14) Mayfield then had 90 days to petition the U.S.

Supreme Court for review. Sup. Ct. R. 13. When she did not do so, her judgment became final.

See Bowen v. Roe, 188 F.3d 1157, 1159 (9th Cir. 1999). 

 The one-year limitation period did not begin to run immediately because Mayfield was

pursuing post-conviction relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). Tolling pursuant to § 2244(d)(2)

Case 4:13-cv-00946-DCB Document 17 Filed 09/17/14 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 -

continued until the trial court dismissed the post-conviction relief proceedings on March 21,

2007. (Doc. 16-3, p. 37); see also Hemmerle v. Schriro, 495 F.3d 1069, 1074 (9th Cir. 2007)

(tolling applies to a properly filed notice even if a petition is never filed), cert. denied, 555 U.S.

829 (2008). The limitation period began running the next day and expired one year later on

March 21, 2008. Approximately five years later, on August 15, 2013, she filed her original

petition in this court. Her amended petition, which relates back to the filing date of her original

petition, is time-barred.

Mayfield argues her petition is timely because it was filed within one year of the date the

Arizona Court of Appeals denied her petition for review of the trial court’s decision dismissing

her third post-conviction relief notice. (Doc. 9, p. 11) She is incorrect. The limitation period

expired on March 21, 2008. The period was not renewed when Mayfield filed her subsequent

notice of post-conviction relief. Ferguson v. Palmateer, 321 F.3d 820, 823 (9th Cir. 2003).

Mayfield did not file a reply arguing she is entitled to equitable tolling.

RECOMMENDATION

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

of the record, enter an order Dismissing the amended petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Doc.

9) It is time-barred. 

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

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

timely filed, they may be deemed waived. The Local Rules permit a response to an objection.

They do not permit a reply to a response.

DATED this 17th day of September, 2014.

Case 4:13-cv-00946-DCB Document 17 Filed 09/17/14 Page 4 of 4