Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01650/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01650-0/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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Antonio Aguilar, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-1650-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (doc. 1), respondents’ response (doc. 10), the report and recommendation of

the United States Magistrate Judge (doc. 11), and petitioner’s objections (doc. 12). 

In his federal habeas petition, petitioner asserts three grounds for relief: (1) denial of

his speedy trial rights by counsel’s waiver of those rights over petitioner’s objection, (2)

prosecutorial misconduct through the use of perjured testimony, and (3) ineffective assistance

of counsel through counsel’s failure to admit police reports to impeach officers’ testimony.

With respect to ground one, we agree with the magistrate judge that petitioner’s claim

raises a speedy trial rights claim, and not a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. We

also agree with the magistrate judge that, because there is no established speedy trial right

beyond the verdict, petitioner’s objection to the delay during the sentencing phase will not

support habeas relief. Finally, we agree that petitioner is bound by his counsel’s consent to

Case 2:08-cv-01650-FJM Document 13 Filed 09/11/09 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 -

waive his speedy trial rights resulting in the delayed start of his trial. There is no allegation

that petitioner objected to this waiver. Accordingly, ground one is without merit and is

denied.

In ground two, petitioner argues that he suffered from prosecutorial misconduct

because of the prosecutor’s use of perjured testimony. Though his argument is unclear, it

appears that petitioner contends that there were inconsistencies between the police reports

and Officer Smith’s testimony. We agree with the magistrate judge that the claimed

discrepancies are insignificant (e.g., when Officer Smith turned off the suspect’s vehicle;

whether Officer Smith was present during the search). A “mere inconsistency is not

tantamount to perjury absent a showing of knowing falsehood.” United States v. Flake, 746

F.2d 535, 539 (9th Cir. 1984). Ground two is without merit and is denied.

Petitioner asserts in ground three that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to

introduce the police report into evidence to impeach the police officers’ testimony (doc. 1

at 44). In his objections to the report and recommendation, petitioner characterizes his

ineffective assistance claim as stemming from counsel’s failure to object when the prosecutor

used the police reports to impeach him (doc. 12 at 2). 

First, we agree with the magistrate judge that the trial counsel’s decision not to

introduce the police report into evidence to impeach the officers’ testimony was a strategic

decision that itself is insufficient to support a charge of inadequate representation. Moreover,

even if we accept the construction of the ineffective assistance claim presented for the first

time in petitioner’s objections, we nevertheless conclude that it is without merit. The trial

court struck the testimony from the record and instructed the jury not to consider it for any

purpose. See Answer, exhibit A at 10. We presume that the jury abides by the court’s

instructions. State v. Ramirez, 178 Ariz. 116, 127, 871 P.2d 237, 248 (1994). Ground three

is without merit and is denied. 

Therefore, after our de novo consideration of the issues, we accept the recommended

decision of the magistrate judge, pursuant to Rule 8(b), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. 

Case 2:08-cv-01650-FJM Document 13 Filed 09/11/09 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 -

IT IS ORDERED that the clerk shall substitute Charles L. Ryan, successor Director

of the Arizona Department of Corrections, for Respondent Dora Schriro. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING the petition for writ of habeas corpus

(doc. 1). 

DATED this 10th day of September, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-01650-FJM Document 13 Filed 09/11/09 Page 3 of 3