Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_05-cv-02509/USCOURTS-azd-3_05-cv-02509-0/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

Jonathan J. Bodary, )

)

 Petitioner, )

) 

v. ) CV 05-2509 PCT FJM (VAM)

)

Dora Schriro, et al., ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 )

 Respondents. )

TO THE HONORABLE FREDERICK J. MARTONE, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.

Jonathan J. Bodary ("petitioner") filed a pro se Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner raises three grounds for relief. (Doc. 1 at pp. 5-7). 

Respondents filed an answer requesting that the habeas petition

be denied and dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 13).

PETITIONER'S PREVIOUS HABEAS CORPUS PETITION

 The following background facts were recounted in a previous

Report and Recommendation on petitioner's prior habeas corpus

petition. (See Bodary v. Thomas, CIV 01-1357 PCT RBC (VAM) at

Doc. 14): 

On October 13, 1998, petitioner pleaded guilty to the crimes

of attempted child molestation (a Class 3 felony), as charged in

Count 3; sexual abuse as charged in Count 6 (a Class 5 felony);

and contributing to the delinquency of a minor (a Class 1

misdemeanor) as charged in Count 7 in CR 98-0239. In return, the

Case 3:05-cv-02509-FJM Document 14 Filed 05/25/06 Page 1 of 8
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

court dismissed Counts 1, 2, 4 and 5. (Bodary v. Thomas, CIV 01-

1357 PCT RBC (VAM) ("Bodary I"), Doc. 12, Exhibit A at pp. 5, 12,

13, 21). At the time petitioner committed these offenses, he was

a high school teacher at Bradshaw Mountain High School, Prescott

Valley, Humboldt School District. The crimes involved 3 female

students in separate incidents. (Bodary I, Doc. 12, Exhibit A at

pp. 13-21; Exhibit D at p. 10). On January 4, 1999, petitioner

was sentenced to the presumptive term of 10 years imprisonment

for the crime of attempted child molestation, 6 months in jail on

the misdemeanor crime of contributing to the delinquency of a

minor to be served concurrently with the 10-year sentence for

attempted child molestation and lifetime probation for the crime

of sexual abuse. (Id., Doc. 12, Exhibit D; Doc. 1 at p. 1).

 On June 1, 1999, petitioner filed a petition for postconviction relief. Petitioner alleged his counsel at sentencing

rendered ineffective assistance by failing to challenge the

aggravating evidence presented concerning alleged misconduct

between himself and two students from Andersen Junior High School

in the Chandler Unified School District. Petitioner worked as a

teacher at this school after he left Bradshaw High School in

Prescott. Specifically, petitioner alleged that counsel was

ineffective at sentencing "because he failed to challenge the

State's aggravating evidence regarding the Chandler Unified

School District." (Bodary I, Doc. 12, Exhibit D at p. 12). In

an order dated December 17, 1999, the trial court granted the

petition for post-conviction relief. (Id., Doc. 12 at Exhibit

F). The court held that "[t]he failure of defense counsel to

Case 3:05-cv-02509-FJM Document 14 Filed 05/25/06 Page 2 of 8
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

request a presentence mitigation hearing and the failure of

defense counsel to provide the Court with [petitioner's] response

to the Chandler School District's alleged aggravating factors

resulted in the denial of effective assistance of counsel." 

(Id., Doc. 12, Exhibit F at p. 3). The aggravating factors

concerned allegations of additional sexual misconduct by

petitioner with female students at a Chandler Junior High School. 

(See id., Doc. 12, Exhibit D at pp. 5-6). The court ordered that

petitioner be resentenced. (Id., Doc. 12, Exhibit F at p. 3).

 Petitioner was resentenced on February 29, 2000. (Bodary I,

Doc. 12 at Exhibit G). After reviewing all the mitigating

evidence submitted by petitioner, the court again sentenced

petitioner to 10 years for the attempted child molestation

conviction, 6 months in jail for the contributing to the

delinquency of a minor conviction and lifetime probation for the

sexual abuse conviction. (See id., Doc. 12, Exhibit H). 

 Petitioner filed a second Notice of Petition for PostConviction Relief pursuant to Ariz.R.Crim.P. 32.1 on March 8,

2000. (Bodary I, Doc. 12 at Exhibit H). Petitioner followed up

by filing a petition for post-conviction relief challenging his

resentencing. Specifically, petitioner alleged the trial court

erred and violated his right to "constitutional due process" at

resentencing by not correcting his sentence and failing to find

any mitigating circumstances. He also alleged the prosecutor

committed misconduct by calling for vengeance in resentencing. 

(Id., Doc. 12, Exhibit I at p. 2). 

 The trial court denied the second Rule 32 petition in an

Case 3:05-cv-02509-FJM Document 14 Filed 05/25/06 Page 3 of 8
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

order filed on April 28, 2000. (Bodary I, Doc. 12 at Exhibit J).

The court stated, in pertinent part:

 Notwithstanding the fact the Court previously granted

[petitioner's] Rule 32 Petition on the ground of

ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing, the

Court finds that based upon all factors presented to

the Court at the evidentiary hearing, the presentence

hearing and all material submitted to the Court by way

of affidavit and letters submitted to the Court with

the addendum to the presentence report that the

Sentencing Order of February 29, 2000 is clearly

supported by the record and does not violate

[petitioner's] rights of due process.

(Id., Doc. 12, Exhibit J at pp. 1-2). On December 12, 2000, the

Arizona Court of Appeals denied a petition for review without

comment. (Id., Doc. 12 at Exhibit L). The Arizona Supreme Court

denied review without comment on April 24, 2001. (Id., Doc. 1 at

Attachment).

 On July 23, 2001, petitioner filed for federal habeas review

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. (Bodary I, Doc. 1). Petitioner

raised the following grounds for relief:

I. THE TRIAL COURT DENIED PETITIONER DUE PROCESS OF LAW

[14TH AMENDMENT] BY REFUSING TO CONSIDER ANY RELEVANT

MITIGATING EVIDENCE AND BY SENTENCING PETITIONER WITH

"VENGEANCE" AND VINDICTIVENESS.

II. THE TRIAL COURT DENIED PETITIONER DUE PROCESS OF

LAW [14TH AMENDMENT] BY ALLOWING PROSECUTOR'S MISCONDUCT

IN DEMANDING "VENGEANCE" ON BEHALF OF THE VICTIMS AND

BY NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW IN REFUSING TO RECOGNIZE THE

MITIGATING EVIDENCE FOLLOWING THIS DEMAND.

III. THE TRIAL COURT DENIED PETITIONER DUE PROCESS OF

LAW [14TH AMENDMENT] BY NOT GIVING ANY RELIEF TO

PETITIONER AFTER IT GRANTED PETITIONER'S FIRST PETITION

FOR POST CONVICTION RELIEF ON THE GROUND OF INEFFECTIVE

ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AT THE SENTENCING PHASE.

IV. THE TRIAL COURT DENIED PETITIONER DUE PROCESS OF

THE LAW [14TH AMENDMENT] BY ALLOWING THE PROSECUTOR TO

FILE RESENTENCING MEMORANDUM TWO DAYS LATE IN DIRECT

VIOLATION OF THE COURT'S ORDER WHICH UNDERMINED THE

Case 3:05-cv-02509-FJM Document 14 Filed 05/25/06 Page 4 of 8
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 5

FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS OF THE COURT PROCEEDINGS.

(Bodary I, Doc. 2 at p. 1; Doc. 1 at pp. 5-8). 

On May 13, 2003, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and

Recommendation recommending that the habeas petition be denied. 

(Bodary I, Doc. 14). On May 4, 2004, the District Court issued

an order denying the habeas petition on the basis that all four

grounds raised were procedurally defaulted. (Id., Doc. 16). 

Petitioner sought review before the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals, but the Court of Appeals denied a certificate of

appealability on October 1, 2004. (Id., Doc. 21).

PETITIONER'S SECOND HABEAS CORPUS PETITION

On August 19, 2005, petitioner filed the current habeas

petition, again challenging the validity of the state sentences

handed down for his convictions in CR 98-0239. (Compare Doc. 1

at pp. 1 and 5-7 and Bodary I, Doc. 1 at pp. 1 and 5-8). The

claims raised in the current petition are as follows:

GROUND I: CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 14: DUE PROCESS OF

LAW

Petitioner was denied due process of law at

resentencing on February 29, 2000, where trial court

refused to recognize the mitigating evidence that was

presented to the court ....

GROUND II: CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 14: DUE PROCESS OF

LAW

Petitioner was denied due process of law at

resentencing on February 29, 2000, where Prosecutor's

misconduct in demanding "vengeance" on behalf of the

victims undermined the basic fairness of the legal

process ....

GROUND III: Sixth Amendment of the Constitution:

Ineffective Assistance of (Appellate) Counsel

On 3/8/00, Charles Anthony Shaw, attorney for Bodary,

Case 3:05-cv-02509-FJM Document 14 Filed 05/25/06 Page 5 of 8
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

petitioner, filed Petitioner's second Rule 32 petition

for PCR (petition dismissed) .... At no time did

Petitioner's counsel "federalize" his claims using

federal legal theory to support his claims ....

(Doc. 1 at pp. 5-7).

DISCUSSION

Respondents seek dismissal of the petition because they

contend the Court lacks jurisdiction "to act ... because [the

petition] is an uncertified second or successive habeas petition

to CV 01-1357-PCT-RCB and contains two of the same claims

presented in the prior application, all in violation of 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3)(A)." (Doc. 13 at p. 1). 

Alternatively, respondents argue the claims are barred by the

statute of limitations. (Id. at pp. 6-7).

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) provides:

 (1) A claim presented in a second or successive

habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was

presented in a prior application shall be dismissed.

 (2) A claim presented in a second or successive

habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was

not presented in a prior application shall be dismissed

unless -

(A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on 

a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to

cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that

was previously unavailable; or

(B)(i) the factual predicate for the claim could

not have been discovered previously through exercise of

due diligence; and

(ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven

and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would

be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing

evidence that, but for constitutional error, no

reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant

guilty of the underlying offense.

Case 3:05-cv-02509-FJM Document 14 Filed 05/25/06 Page 6 of 8
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 7

(3)(A) Before a second or successive application

permitted by this section is filed in the district

court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate

court of appeals for an order authorizing the district

court to consider the application. (Emphasis added).

.....

(4) A district court shall dismiss any claim presented

in a second or successive application that the court of

appeals has authorized to be filed unless the applicant

shows that the claim satisfies the requirements of this

section.

Petitioner's current habeas petition is his second

challenging the validity of the sentences he received as a result

of his 1999 convictions in Arizona Superior Court in CR 98-0239. 

(Compare Doc. 1 at p. 1 and Bodary I, Doc. 1 at p. 1). The

claims raised in Grounds I and II of the current petition are

identical to the claims raised in Grounds I and II in Bodary I. 

(Compare Doc. 1 at pp. 5 and 6 and Bodary I, Doc. 1 at pp. 5 and

6). As a result, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) mandates dismissal of

these claims. 

Although it does not appear that Ground III of the current

petition was raised in Bodary I, this claim must also be

dismissed because petitioner has not demonstrated that Ground III

satisfies any of the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A)

and (B). In addition, petitioner has not obtained the necessary

authorization from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to have

this claim heard in the District Court in a second or successive

habeas application. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Therefore,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(4), Ground III should be

dismissed.

Because all petitioner's habeas claims are barred pursuant

Case 3:05-cv-02509-FJM Document 14 Filed 05/25/06 Page 7 of 8
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 8

to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), the Court need not address respondents'

alternative argument that the claims are barred by the statute of

limitations.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(4).

 This Report and Recommendation is not an order that is

immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Any notice of appeal filed pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal

Rules of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of

the district court’s order and judgment. The parties shall have

ten (10) days from the date of service of this Report and

Recommendation within which to file specific written objections

with the Court. Thereafter, the parties have ten (10) days

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

timely file objections to any factual determinations of the

Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party's right

to de novo consideration of the factual issues and will

constitute a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the

findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the

Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. 

DATED this 23rd day of May, 2006.

Case 3:05-cv-02509-FJM Document 14 Filed 05/25/06 Page 8 of 8