Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02348/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02348-6/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

 The magistrate judge agreed to consider the supplemental information provided in

this motion in support of Ground Four of the petition; we do the same. 

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert Lee Barnes, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et. al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 2:05-cv-02348-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus (doc. 1),

petitioner's "Motion to Include to Original Petition"1

 (doc. 15), respondents' answer (doc.

22), petitioner's reply (doc. 24), respondents' supplemental answer (doc. 26), and the

report and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (doc. 30). Petitioner

has failed to file objections and the time for filing them has expired; therefore, we adopt

the Magistrate's recommendation in full. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d

1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (interpreting 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C)). Petitioner's

consecutive sentences do not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause for two alternative,

independent grounds. 

Case 2:05-cv-02348-FJM Document 31 Filed 10/06/06 Page 1 of 3
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 -

1. The state court determined that petitioner's consecutive sentences for

conspiracy to commit aggravated assault, a felony in violation of A.R.S. §§ 13-1003(A),

13-1203, 13-1204 (2006), and assisting a criminal syndicate, a felony in violation of § 13-

2308(c), which requires proof of any underlying felony, did not violate the Double

Jeopardy Clause. That decision is a reasonable application of the United States Supreme

Court's precedent, and a reasonable determination of the facts. See 28 § 2254(d)(1)-(2).

The state court reasonably found that the crime used to satisfy the underlying

felony offense element of § 13-2308(c), based on petitioner's conduct involving a rifle,

was not the offense of conspiracy to commit aggravated assault. At the Change of Plea

Proceeding, petitioner's counsel stated that petitioner "specifically assisted the criminal

street gang by agreeing to furnish a rifle to members of Park South, although this rifle

was not used . . . at the 7-Eleven [where the shooting occurred]." Supplemental Answer

Exhibit A at 14. The trial court rationally construed that statement to mean that petitioner

agreed to and did furnish a rifle to members of a gang. The conduct of furnishing a rifle

is itself sufficient for a felony conviction; whether the furnished rifle was actually used is

immaterial. See § 13-3102(A)(14). Therefore, each offense petitioner was convicted of

contained elements not found in the other, and consecutive sentences for both did not

violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. See Blockburger v. U.S., 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S.

Ct. 180, 182 (1932); Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U.S. 682, 682, 97 S. Ct. 2912, 2912-13

(1977) (holding that when conviction of a crime cannot be had without conviction of a

requisite underlying felony, violation of the underlying felony cannot justify an additional

sentence). 

Case 2:05-cv-02348-FJM Document 31 Filed 10/06/06 Page 2 of 3
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 -

2. Alternatively, petitioner's agreement to furnish a rifle is conduct sufficient to

satisfy the elements of an additional felony: conspiring to commit misconduct involving

weapons. See §§ 13-1003, 13-3102(A)(14). That conduct provides an alternative

underlying felony for purposes of satisfying the felony element of the § 13-2308(c)

offense, and contains elements not found in the offense of conspiracy to commit

aggravated assault. Therefore, under this alternative theory, consecutive sentences for

conspiracy to commit aggravated assault and assisting a criminal syndicate in violation of

§ 13-2308(c) would not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. 

For the foregoing reasons, we accept the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED DENYING the petition for writ of habeas corpus (doc.

1). 

DATED this 5th day of October, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-02348-FJM Document 31 Filed 10/06/06 Page 3 of 3