Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-01788/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-01788-0/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

WILLIE LEE PARKER, )

) CV 03-01788-PHX-JAT [CRP]

Petitioner, ) 

)

vs. ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

)

WILLIAM S. GASPAR, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

___________________________________ )

Willie Lee Parker has filed a Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus By A Person In State

Custody, hereafter "Petition." In the Petition, Parker asserts three grounds for relief, all three

based on the assertion of ineffective assistance of counsel. The State opposes the Petition,

arguing procedural default and no entitlement to relief on the merits. Petitioner has also filed

a request for an evidentiary hearing.

After reviewing the record, the Court determines that there is no basis for holding an

evidentiary hearing to expand the evidence presented before the state court. The Court also

concludes that petitioner did procedurally default the claims raised in the Petition and those

claims lack merit. For these reasons, the Court recommends that the District Judge DENY

the issuance of the writ.

1. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On June 6, 1999, a Phoenix Police Officer observed Petitioner pointing a handgun at

three individuals. The officer arrested Petitioner and subsequently determined the gun to be

loaded. Petitioner was charged with three counts of aggravated assault and one count of

Case 2:03-cv-01788-JAT-CRP Document 25 Filed 08/31/05 Page 1 of 10
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

Reference herein to Exhibits are to the Exhibits attached to Respondent's Answer.

- 2 -

misconduct involving weapons. After a trial to a jury, Petitioner was acquitted on all three

counts of aggravated assault, but was found guilty on the weapons misconduct count. On

November 17, 1999, Petitioner was sentenced to the presumptive term of ten years

imprisonment. 

Petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal. Petitioner's attorney filed an Anders brief.

Petitioner filed pro se, Appellant's Supplemental Opening Brief raising the following issues:

1) That the ten year sentence was excessive under the state and federal Constitutions, in

that it was based on conduct he had been acquitted of, and a 1985 prior conviction

used to enhance a sentence in 1994;

2) That A.R.S. § 13-116 is vague and violates the state and federal Constitutions

"because the same prior conviction is used more than once to enhance (Petitioner's)

sentence." State's Answer, [Exhibit D1

, p.3];

3) That the trial court failed to advise Petitioner of his right to confront witnesses and the

right to remain silent before accepting Petitioner's admission of the prior conviction;

and

4) That Petitioner is entitled to be resentenced because the sentence was based on

inaccurate information in the presentence report, specifically the mention of conduct

Petitioner was acquitted of and prior convictions.

Petitioner asked the Court of Appeals to vacate the sentence and remand with

instructions to consider only one prior conviction on resentencing.

On August 3, 2000, the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and

sentence. No request for review or reconsideration was filed.

On September 5, 2000, Petitioner filed a Notice of Post-Conviction Relief in Superior

Court. [Exhibit F] In the Notice, Petitioner continues to complain that the presentence report

did not state that he was acquitted of the aggravated assault charges and that only one prior

conviction should have been considered.

Case 2:03-cv-01788-JAT-CRP Document 25 Filed 08/31/05 Page 2 of 10
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 November 13, 2000, Petitioner filed a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief in

Superior Court [Exhibit G & H], complaining for the first time of incompetent assistance of

counsel. Petitioner raised two issues. First, that defense counsel failed to request a

mitigation hearing after Petitioner was denied his fundamental right to a mitigation hearing.

Second, that Petitioner was denied his fundamental right to a mitigation hearing. [Exhibit H]

The Petition was denied on November 2, 2001, the Court finding that counsel was far

from ineffective at sentencing and that no basis had been shown for a mitigation hearing.

[Exhibit I]

Petitioner filed a Motion For Reconsideration [Exhibit J], raising for the first time that

his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not requesting a Rule 11 hearing, based on his

prior diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. [Exhibit J, p.2,3] Petitioner also complained of

the failure to call character witnesses at the time of sentencing. [Exhibit J, p.3] On January

2, 2002, the motion for reconsideration was denied. [Exhibit K]

On February 15, 2002, Petitioner filed a Petition for Review in the Arizona Court of

Appeals. [Exhibit K] Therein, Petitioner raised three issues for review:

1) Was it ineffective assistance of counsel not to present

evidence of Petitioner's diagnosis of paranoid

schizophrenia at the time of sentencing?

2) Did the sentencing rely on inaccurate information in the

presentence report in violation of state statute and

"clearly established Federal Law?"

3) Did the trial court fail to consider Petitioner's duress as

a mitigating factor at sentencing?

[Exhibit L, p.2-3] Separately, Petitioner filed a Motion To Include Mental Health Records

In Record on Appeal. [Exhibit M] On August 15, 2002, the Court of Appeals denied the

request to enlarge the record because no reference to a failure to present mental health

evidence was made before the trial court. [Exhibit N] On January 8, 2003, the Court of

Appeals summarily denied the Petition For Review. [Exhibit O]

On January 27, 2003, Petitioner filed a Petition For Review with the Arizona Supreme

Court. Therein, Petitioner again asserted several grounds for resentencing based on the

inadequate investigation of his mental health status. On July 10, 2003, the Arizona Supreme

Case 2:03-cv-01788-JAT-CRP Document 25 Filed 08/31/05 Page 3 of 10
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 -

Court denied the Petition For Review.

On September 11, 2003. Petitioner filed his Petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254,

which is presently before the Court.

II. ANALYSIS OF THE CLAIMS

Petitioner asserts three grounds for relief, each claiming inadequate assistance of

counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment because his trial attorney failed to investigate

Petitioner's "mental conditions," or properly object to the presentence investigation.

Respondent concedes the Petition is timely filed. Respondent argues that Petitioner failed

to exhaust his state remedies by raising these issues as specific claims based on federal law

before the state court. Additionally, Respondent argues Petitioner is not entitled to relief on

the merits of his claim.

A. Exhaustion of State Remedies and Procedural Default

Petitioner's application for relief from his conviction and sentence have, except for the

filing of an Anders brief, all been filed pro se. Not surprisingly, there is little consistency in

the arguments Petitioner raised as he moved from one level of review to another. This

complicates the analysis of exhaustion and procedural default.

Petitioner filed a Supplemental Opening Brief on direct appeal. This brief raised four

issues, two of which are relevant to the Petition before the Court. On appeal, Petitioner

argued that his sentence was based on inaccurate information in the presentence report and

that the sentence was excessive, in violation of the state and federal Constitutions. Petitioner

did not cite a specific provision of the Constitution of the United States. He did cite two

federal cases. United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148, 117 S. Ct. 633 (1997), and United States

v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443 (1972). Citation to these Supreme Court cases put the state court on

notice that petitioner was raising federal claims to challenge his sentence. The appeal was

denied and the conviction and sentence affirmed in a memorandum decision of the State

Court of Appeals, Division One. The mandate issued on September 20, 2000.

Petitioner subsequently filed a Petition For Post-Conviction Relief ("PCR") in State

court raising two issues: 

Case 2:03-cv-01788-JAT-CRP Document 25 Filed 08/31/05 Page 4 of 10
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 -

1. Defense counsel provided ineffective assistance when he did not request a mitigation

hearing after Petitioner asked him to do so; and

2. Petitioner had a right to a mitigation hearing before sentencing. 

In the affidavit, filed in support of the Petition, Petitioner raised no federal claims and

cited no federal authority.

The PCR was denied by the trial court in a minute entry dated November 2, 2001.

[Exhibit I]

On November 19, 2001, Petitioner filed with the trial court a Motion For

Reconsideration. [Exhibit J] Therein, Petitioner cited Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.

668, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984), in support of his ineffective assistance of counsel argument. It

is in this motion, filed more than a year after the mandate denying the direct appeal issues,

that Petitioner complains for the first time about defense counsel's failure to introduce

psychiatric evidence in connection with sentencing. The Motion For Reconsideration was

denied without explanation. [Exhibit K]

Petitioner subsequently filed a Petition For Review with the Court of Appeals raising

three issues. [Exhibit L] The allegation that the sentencing judge relied on inaccurate

information from the presentence report, an allegation raised in the direct appeal, was raised

again. Petitioner argued he was entitled to relief based on clearly established federal law,

citing three federal appellate decisions. [Exhibit L, p.8]

Petitioner also raised the failure to present psychiatric evidence, arguing that it was

ineffective assistance of counsel to fail to request a mitigation hearing and introduce evidence

of Petitioner's psychiatric diagnosis. Petitioner cites several federal cases for the premise that

he has a clearly established right under federal law to a mitigation hearing. [Exhibit L. p.5]

Petitioner's third issue was raised for the first time in the Petition For Review.

Petitioner argued that the sentencing judge did not appropriately consider the duress he was

under as required by A.R.S. § 13-702(D)(3)and(4). Although this issue appears to be one

particular to Arizona's sentencing structure, Petitioner cites several federal cases in support

of his argument. [Exhibit L, pp.8-9]

Case 2:03-cv-01788-JAT-CRP Document 25 Filed 08/31/05 Page 5 of 10
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 also filed a Motion To Include Mental Health Records in Records On

Appeal. [Exhibit M] That motion was denied initially and on reconsideration because the

mental health issue was not presented to the trial court. [Exhibit N] Subsequently, the

Petition For Review was summarily denied by the Court of Appeals. [Exhibit D]

A Petition For Review was filed with the State Supreme Court. [Exhibit P] Once

again, Petitioner complained of the inadequate and inaccurate presentence report and the

failure of defense counsel to present "mitigating mental health information." Petitioner also

complained of the refusal of the state court to consider the mental health information.

Finally, Petitioner argued he was entitled to treatment and a sentence reduction because of

his mental health issues pursuant to a federal statute that is not specifically cited. Petitioner

cites ample federal authority for the ineffective assistance of counsel argument, but he cites

no federal authority to support the inadequate presentence report argument. This petition for

review was summarily denied by the Arizona Supreme Court. [Exhibit Q]

In the Petition before this Court, Petitioner complains of ineffective assistance of

counsel in three specific ways:

1. defense counsel's failure to investigate Petitioner's mental condition despite being

aware of Petitioner's mental health problems;

2. failing to request a mitigation hearing to present evidence of the mental health

problems; and

3. failing to object to the Presentence Report and object to the inaccurate information in

it.

Petitioner must exhaust state remedies prior to this Court issuing a writ of habeas

corpus. 28 U.S.C. 2254(b)(1)(A). To exhaust state remedies, Petitioner must fairly present

the claim to the state courts specifically as a federal claim. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364,

115 S.Ct. 887 (1995); Castillo v. McFadden, 399 F.3d 993, 999 (9th Cir 2005).

Petitioner's complaint that his attorney did not investigate and argue his mental health

issues in mitigation of his sentence was not raised for the first time until more than a year

after the mandate issued denying the direct appeal. Because the issue was first raised in the

Case 2:03-cv-01788-JAT-CRP Document 25 Filed 08/31/05 Page 6 of 10
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 -

motion to reconsider the trial court's denial of the PCR, this issue was never appropriately

brought before the trial court. As a result, the appellate courts did not consider the mental

health issue.

The mental health claims were not exhausted before the state court and are now

procedurally barred. Petitioner had to file his PCR in state court within thirty days of the

mandate on direct appeal, Here, these issues were not raised until more than a year after the

mandate and no excuse for the delay has been asserted. Federal review of these claims is

barred. Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 298 (1989).

Petitioner's argument that the presentence report was inadequate and inaccurate was

raised on direct appeal, with citation to federal authority, but not as an ineffective assistance

of counsel claim. While the two claims may be related, at least in Petitioner's mind at this

point, the failure to specifically assert the claim as a Sixth Amendment right to counsel claim

means the claim asserted in this Petition was not fairly presented to the state court. Rose v.

Palmateer, 395 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2005). Petitioner did not raise this claim at all in

his PCR. He did raise the inaccuracy of the presentence investigation again in the Petition

For Review with the Arizona Court of Appeals, however, the issue was not presented as an

ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Petitioner did not exhaust this issue, and the issue

is now procedurally barred before the state courts. Federal habeas relief is not available to

Petitioner on the issue of the inadequacy or inaccuracy of the presentence report.

While the second issue in this Petition focuses on the potential to introduce mental

health testimony at a mitigation hearing, Petitioner does assert that defense counsel's failure

to request a mitigation hearing was ineffective assistance of counsel. This issue was raised

in the initial PCR, and in subsequent memoranda and petitions before the state courts, the

issue was clearly asserted as a claim based on federal law. Petitioner has exhausted state

remedies on the issue of whether or not he was deprived of a mitigation hearing in violation

of federal right to effective assistance of counsel. 

. . . . . . . . .

B. Analysis Of The Merits - Federal Entitlement To A Mitigation Hearing

Case 2:03-cv-01788-JAT-CRP Document 25 Filed 08/31/05 Page 7 of 10
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 -

Petitioner claims he received ineffective assistance of counsel at a crucial stage in the

proceeding when his attorney did not request a mitigation hearing, pursuant to Rule 26.7,

Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner maintained in state court that he asked his

attorney to request a mitigation hearing. [Exhibit H, p.2] No similar allegation appears in

the Petition before this Court.

Petitioner has no federal Constitutional right to a mitigation hearing, or even the

opportunity to speak in his own behalf at the sentencing. Wright, King & Klein, Federal

Practice and Procedure. Criminal 3d § 525. Therefore, this is not such a strategic or

fundamental aspect of the proceeding where prejudice will be presumed. The issue is

whether Petitioner has shown that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance in connection

with sentencing.

The starting point for the analysis of Sixth Amendment ineffective assistance of

counsel claims is the landmark case of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668. 104 Sc. Ct.

2064. Judicial review of counsel's decisions are to be "highly deferential," and presume that

defense counsel's actions "might be considered sound trial strategy." Strickland, 466 U.S.

at 690, 104 S.Ct. at 2065.

Deference must be given to the factual determination made by the state court. 28

U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). The trial court made extensive factual findings in ruling on the PCR.

[Exhibit I] The court noted defense counsel's diligence and zealousness in requesting a

super mitigated sentence and the failure of Petitioner to identify any specific character

witnesses or hearsay evidence that could have been presented at the mitigation hearing. Id.

The court noted that an aggravated sentence could easily been imposed based on Petitioner's

criminal record, and it is reasonable to assume that defense counsel's efforts convinced Judge

D'Angelo not to impose an aggravated sentence. Finally, Judge Atwood specifically found

that "there was no basis for requesting a mitigation hearing, and defense counsel was not

ineffective for failing to request one." Id., p.2.

Defense counsel's decision to submit letters instead of subjecting character witnesses

to cross-examination by the prosecution is a reasonable strategic judgment. The inaccuracies

Case 2:03-cv-01788-JAT-CRP Document 25 Filed 08/31/05 Page 8 of 10
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

- 9 -

in the presentence investigation appear to be based on Petitioner's misconceptions. [Exhibit

I, p.3] While the failure to introduce psychological evidence was not presented in the PCR

or analyzed by Judge Atwood, this also appears to be a reasonable strategic decision. There

is no reason to believe that presentation of Petitioner's serious mental health problems,

combined with a lengthy criminal history would have lead to a mitigated sentence. No court

has imposed an obligation on defense attorneys to investigate mental health issues in the

sentencing phase of a non-capital case. Lambert v. Blodgett, 393, F.3d 943, 983 (9th Cir.

2004).

Here, the record is clear that defense counsel acted reasonably and diligently, and that

no prejudice to Petitioner has been shown to be caused by any of his attorney's strategic

decisions. Petitioner has failed to satisfy either prong of the Strickland test. The application

for the writ should be denied

C. Request For Evidentiary Hearing

Petitioner requests an evidentiary hearing, but shows no cause why he did not specify

available character witnesses or hearsay evidence to the trial court when prosecuting the

PCR. The minute entry of Judge Jarrett [Exhibit I] makes clear that the Petitioner's interests

were vigorously represented at sentencing. There is certainly no showing that he suffered

actual prejudice. Therefore, Petitioner is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing before this

Court. Nor has it been shown a fundamental miscarriage of justice will occur if an

evidentiary hearing is not held. The request for the hearing should be denied. Keeney v.

Tamayo-Reyo, 504 U.S. 1, 11-12, 112 S.Ct. 1715, 1721 (1992), 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2).

III. CONCLUSION

It is the Report and Recommendation of this Court that the District Judge, after his

independent review, find and order as follows:

1. That Petitioner has failed to exhaust his state remedies on the first and third issues

presented in the Petition and that portion of the second issue related to the

introduction of mental health evidence;

2. That further pursuit of those issues in state court would be futile because they are

Case 2:03-cv-01788-JAT-CRP Document 25 Filed 08/31/05 Page 9 of 10
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

- 10 -

procedurally barred by state procedural rules;

3. That Petitioner has failed to establish that his attorney's performance at sentencing,

in failing to request a mitigation hearing, fell below objective standards of a

reasonable attorney such that he was deprived of a fair proceeding;

4. That there is no basis for an evidentiary hearing to be conducted by this Court because

Petitioner has failed to show cause for the failure to more fully develop the factual

record below and there is no actual prejudice resulting from that failure; and

5. That the Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied.

For these reasons, it is the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that the District

Judge, after his independent review, issuing an order:

1. DENYING the Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus [Docket 1];

2. DENYING the Motion For Evidentiary Hearing [Docket 23]; and

3. DENYING the Motion For Status of Case As Moot [Docket 24].

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the parties have ten (10) days from the date of

this Report and Recommendation to file written objections to these findings and

recommendations with the District Court. Any objections filed should be filed as CV 03-

01788-PHX-JAT.

DATED this 31st day of August, 2005.

JAT

CRP

Willie Lee Parker [Pro Se] (No. 33960(T-T-8)/AZ State Prison-Tucson-Echo Unit, PO Box 24402, 

 Tucson, AZ 85734)

Kerri L. Chamberlin, Esq. [U.S. Attorney's Office]

Case 2:03-cv-01788-JAT-CRP Document 25 Filed 08/31/05 Page 10 of 10