Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00560/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00560-1/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 

Derrick Samuel Champa, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-15-00560-PHX-ROS

ORDER 

 Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf concluded Petitioner Derrick Samuel 

Champa’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus should be denied because it is barred by the 

applicable statute of limitations. Champa disagrees and argues he is actually innocent of 

one of the charges such that the statute of limitations should not bar review of his claims. 

The Magistrate Judge’s analysis will be adopted with one exception explained below. 

 In 2004, Champa was indicted on one charge of conspiracy to commit murder and 

one charge of attempted first degree murder. (Doc. 12-1 at 4). An amended indictment 

charged Champa with one count of conspiracy and three counts of attempted first degree 

murder, one count for each of Champa’s alleged victims. (Doc. 12-1 at 8). These 

charges stemmed from Champa attempted to hire an individual, who was actually an 

undercover police officer, to kill three people. The transcript of the first conversation 

between Champa and the officer included a clear indication Champa was attempting to 

kill three people, a father and his two sons: 

Officer: All right now we got that out of the way. I hear you have 

Case 2:15-cv-00560-ROS Document 19 Filed 05/09/16 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

something you want taken care of. 

Champa: Yes. Um, couple guys, um basically three guys, two that could be 

a ways from now, 6, 8, 9, 10 months, a year. 

(Doc. 12-1 at 19). 

The conversation then continued with Champa and the officer agreeing that one of the 

sons would be the first to be killed. In a later conversation Champa changed his mind 

about the order in which the sons should be killed. During that conversation, the officer 

asked about the father: 

Officer: Okay. And then we’ve got uh J., is that the father? 

Champa: Yeah. I’m hopin he kind of dies with what happens with those 

guys (laughing). 

Officer: Okay okay. 

Champa: still laughing 

Champa: You know. 

Officer: The shock of these two? 

Champa: Yeah. I hope. That’d be good. 

(Doc. 12-1 at 42-43). 

Champa decided to plead guilty to the three counts of attempted first degree murder and 

the conspiracy charge would be dismissed. At the change of plea hearing, the court asked 

an attorney to recite the factual basis for Champa’s plea. The attorney stated: 

On January 30th, 2004, in Maricopa County, the defendant, Derrick 

Champa, approached undercover police officer, Officer Gibbs and 

negotiated him—negotiated with him to murder three men . . . . 

(Doc. 12-3 at 109). 

The court asked Champa “do you avow that is the factual basis as well?” Champa 

responded “Yes. Yes, Your Honor.” (Doc. 12-3 at 110). The court then inquired further 

“Mr. Champa, you have heard what [the attorney] had to say. Do you agree all that is 

Case 2:15-cv-00560-ROS Document 19 Filed 05/09/16 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

true?” Champa responded “Yes, Your Honor.” (Doc. 12-3 at 110). 

 Champas’s sentencing took place on January 7, 2005. At that hearing, the court 

noted there were aggravating circumstances in that “there wasn’t just one victim in this 

case but there were three victims.” (Doc. 12-3 at 116). Champa did not disagree with 

this statement. Based on his plea to three counts, Champa was sentenced to a total of 22 

years imprisonment. (Doc. 12-3 at 117). Over the next decade, Champa repeatedly 

attempted to obtain post-conviction relief in state court. All of those efforts failed. 

Champa filed this federal petition on March 27, 2015. 

 As explained in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), 

Champa’s federal petition is well outside the one-year statute of limitations. The only 

argument Champa offers to avoid the statute of limitations bar is that he is actually 

innocent of the charge based on his alleged attempt to murder the father. Actual 

innocence can serve to excuse untimeliness. McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S. Ct. 1924, 

1935 (2013). There is, however, some debate whether an individual who pleads guilty 

can later make an actual innocence claim. Smith v. Baldwin, 510 F.3d 1127, 1140 n.9 

(9th Cir. 2007) (assuming without decided that actual innocence claim is available to 

pleading defendant). Assuming for the moment Champa’s guilty plea does not preclude 

him from pursing an actual innocence argument, his argument is not convincing. 

 The focus of Champa’s actual innocence claim is “Count 4” involving his alleged 

attempt to kill the father. The R&R adopts the view that under Champa’s version of the 

facts, he still “intended to cause the death of [the father], albeit indirectly.” (Doc. 15 at 

15). In other words, the R&R reasons Champa could have been convicted of attempted 

murder, even if he is correct that his intent was that the father would die from the “shock” 

of his two sons dying. The Court need not address whether a conviction under that 

version of the facts would be permissible because the actual facts are much more 

straightforward. During his first conversation with the undercover officer, Champa stated 

he wanted to have “three guys” killed. At his change of plea hearing, Champa admitted 

he “negotiated with [the officer] to murder three men.” And at his sentencing Champa 

Case 2:15-cv-00560-ROS Document 19 Filed 05/09/16 Page 3 of 4
- 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 

did not object when the court explained the sentence would be based on Champa having 

tried to have three men killed. Champa offers no convincing explanation why the Court 

should ignore these facts. And, most importantly, Champa does not point to affirmative 

evidence that establishes “no reasonable juror would convict him of” attempting to 

murder the father. Smith, 510 F.3d at 1140. Champa’s actual innocence argument is not 

convincing and it cannot be used to avoid the statute of limitations otherwise applicable 

to his federal claims.1

 The Court has reviewed the remainder of the R&R’s legal and 

factual conclusions and finds no error. Therefore, Champa’s federal petition must be 

dismissed as untimely. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 15) is ADOPTED IN 

PART as set forth above. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Amended Petition (Doc. 5) is DENIED. The 

Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed 

in forma pauperis on appeal are denied because dismissal of the petition is justified by a 

plain procedural bar and reasonable jurists would not find the ruling debatable and 

because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right. 

 Dated this 9th day of May, 2016. 

Honorable Roslyn O. Silver

Senior United States District Judge

 

1

 Champa also argues he is actually innocent of the conspiracy charge. Champa was not, however, convicted of conspiracy. Thus, there is no need to address Champa’s various conspiracy-related arguments. 

Case 2:15-cv-00560-ROS Document 19 Filed 05/09/16 Page 4 of 4