Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02593/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02593-1/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

Luis Fernando Garcia, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Warden Fizer, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-2593-PHX-DGC (ECV)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE DAVID G. CAMPBELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

Petitioner Luis Fernando Garcia has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in which he challenges the judgment of conviction and sentence

imposed against him in the Maricopa County Superior Court on April 24, 2003. Doc. #1.

BACKGROUND

 Following a jury trial in March 2003, Petitioner was found guilty of seven felony

counts, including three counts of armed robbery, three counts of kidnaping and one count of

unlawful flight from law enforcement. Doc. #13, Exh. T. Petitioner represented himself at

trial after the court denied his request for a new attorney. Doc. #13, Exh. M-O. On April 24,

2003, the court entered judgments of guilt for the seven counts and sentenced Petitioner to

concurrent terms of 18 years in prison for the armed robbery and kidnaping offenses. Doc.

#13, Exh. X. In addition, the court imposed a consecutive sentence of 1.5 years for the

unlawful flight offense. Id.

Case 2:05-cv-02593-DGC Document 14 Filed 10/18/06 Page 1 of 9
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 -

Petitioner's counsel on direct appeal filed an opening brief pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he stated that after searching the record he could

find no issues to raise. Doc. #13, Exh. GG. Counsel also filed a motion for leave to allow

Petitioner to file a pro per supplemental brief, which the Arizona Court of Appeals granted.

Doc. #13, Exh. HH, II. On January 16, 2004, Petitioner filed a document titled "Motion for

Clerical Mistakes" which contained grounds for relief on appeal and thus was construed as

a supplemental brief. Doc. #13, Exh. KK, LL, MM. On May 20, 2004, the Court of Appeals

issued a Memorandum Decision rejecting Petitioner's claims and affirming his convictions.

Doc. #13, Exh. PP. Petitioner did not file a motion for reconsideration or a petition for

review to the Arizona Supreme Court. Doc. #13, Exh. QQ. 

Petitioner filed a Notice of Post-Conviction Relief in the trial court on May 5, 2003.

Doc. #13, Exh. Y. The trial court appointed counsel (not his direct appeal lawyer) to

represent him in the post-conviction proceedings. Doc. #13, Exh. FF, OO. After the direct

appeal was completed, post-conviction counsel filed a Rule 32.4(c)(2) Notice of Completion

on August 3, 2004, stating that counsel reviewed the record and found no colorable claims

to raise. Doc. #13, Exh. RR. The court then issued an order granting Petitioner time to file

a pro per petition for post-conviction relief. Doc. #13, Exh. SS. Petitioner filed a pro per

petition on September 17, 2004. Doc. #13, Exh. TT. However, the court rejected the petition

because it exceeded the 25 page limit set forth in Rule 32.5 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal

Procedure. Doc. #13, Exh. UU. The court set a new deadline of November 5, 2004, to file

the petition and when Petitioner failed to file by that date, the court dismissed the postconviction proceedings. Doc. #13, Exh. WW. Petitioner submitted a petition on December

14, 2004, but the court again dismissed the post-conviction proceedings, concluding that

Petitioner failed to show cause for his failure to comply with the deadline. Doc. #13, Exh.

ZZ. The court subsequently denied a motion to reinstate his petition. Doc. #13, Exh. CCC.

Petitioner did not file a petition for review in the Arizona Court of Appeals or the Arizona

Supreme Court.

Case 2:05-cv-02593-DGC Document 14 Filed 10/18/06 Page 2 of 9
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 document was translated by Ricardo Gonzalez, United States Court Interpreter,

on October 6, 2006, and is attached as Exhibit A.

2

 This document was also translated by Ricardo Gonzalez, United States Court

Interpreter, on October 6, 2006, and is attached as Exhibit B.

- 3 -

On August 26, 2005, Petitioner filed his habeas petition in this court. Petitioner

alleges two grounds for relief in the body of the petition: (1) that he was denied an effective

attorney in violation of the Sixth Amendment; and (2) that his conviction was obtained using

evidence gathered pursuant to an unlawful arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment. In

a document dated August 12, 2005, that is written in Spanish and attached to his petition,

Petitioner raises another claim, which the court will identify as ground three.1

 Petitioner

alleges in ground three that he did not have legal representation at his restitution hearing on

June 26, 2003, and as a result he was ordered to pay $6,523.00 in restitution. Petitioner also

attached to his petition a second document written in Spanish that is dated August 16, 2005.2

Petitioner raised an additional claim in that document which the court will identify as ground

four. He alleges in ground four that his lawyer failed to show him the evidence that the State

intended to use against him. He claims that he did not enter a plea agreement when one was

offered because he had never been shown any evidence. 

The court screened the petition on May 22, 2006, and ordered service of process on

Respondents. Doc. #7. On July 18, 2006, Respondents filed an Answer to Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus. Doc. #13. Petitioner has not filed a reply even though the screening order

expressly granted him permission to do so. Doc. #7 at 3. 

The Arizona Court of Appeals summarized the facts of the case in its memorandum

decision:

Three armed men entered a business, and one of them

demanded money from the cash register. While the employee

surrendered the money, she triggered a silent alarm. The men

restrained the employee and two customers with duct tape.

They also robbed the customers at gunpoint.

The three men fled. Phoenix Police Officer Stewart

heard the robbery call while nearby. The officer was driving to

the scene when he observed citizens "frantically pointing"

Case 2:05-cv-02593-DGC Document 14 Filed 10/18/06 Page 3 of 9
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 -

around a corner. Officer Stewart then saw the men, and watched

them run to a vehicle. Standing outside of the vehicle by the

driver's door was Defendant. The three men and Defendant

entered the vehicle simultaneously. With Defendant driving, the

vehicle proceeded in Officer Stewart's direction. The officer

had to maneuver his vehicle to avoid a collision. The officer

then chased the vehicle and activated his sirens and signals. In

response, the vehicle accelerated. The vehicle later slowed to

five or ten miles per hour and the occupants jumped from the

vehicle. Officer Stewart, dressed in uniform, pursued Defendant

on foot and yelled stop commands. The officer had to tackle

Defendant to end the chase.

DISCUSSION

Respondents contend in their answer that Petitioner has procedurally defaulted on his

claims for relief. Respondents assert, therefore, that the petition should be denied and

dismissed with prejudice. Having failed to file a reply, Petitioner has not addressed the

question of whether his claims are procedurally defaulted.

A. Procedural Default 

A state prisoner must exhaust his remedies in state court before petitioning for a writ

of habeas corpus in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1) & (c); Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S.

364, 365-66 (1995); McQueary v. Blodgett, 924 F.2d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 1991). To properly

exhaust state remedies, a petitioner must fairly present his claims to the state's highest court

in a procedurally appropriate manner. O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 848 (1999). In

Arizona, a petitioner must fairly present his claims to the Arizona Court of Appeals by

properly pursuing them through the state’s direct appeal process or through appropriate postconviction relief. Swoopes v. Sublett, 196 F.3d 1008, 1010 (9th Cir. 1999); Roettgen v.

Copeland, 33 F.3d 36, 38 (9th Cir. 1994).

Moreover, a claim has been fairly presented if the petitioner has described both the

operative facts and the federal legal theory on which the claim is based. Bland v. Cal. Dep't

of Corrections, 20 F.3d 1469, 1472-73 (9th Cir.1994), overruled on other grounds by Schell

v. Witek, 218 F.3d 1017, 1025 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); Tamalini v. Stewart, 249 F.3d 895,

898-99 (9th Cir. 2001). "Our rule is that a state prisoner has not 'fairly presented' (and thus

exhausted) his federal claims in state court unless he specifically indicated to that court that

Case 2:05-cv-02593-DGC Document 14 Filed 10/18/06 Page 4 of 9
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 -

those claims were based on federal law." Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668 (9th Cir.

2000), amended on other grounds, 247 F.3d 904 (9th Cir. 2001). "If a petitioner fails to alert

the state court to the fact that he is raising a federal constitutional claim, his federal claim is

unexhausted regardless of its similarity to the issues raised in state court." Johnson v. Zenon,

88 F.3d 828, 830 (9th Cir. 1996).

If a petition contains claims that were never fairly presented in state court, the federal

court must determine whether state remedies remain available to the petitioner. See Rose v.

Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 519-20 (1982); Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 268-270 (1989)

(O'Connor, J., concurring). If remedies are still available in state court, the federal court may

dismiss the petition without prejudice pending the exhaustion of state remedies. Id.

However, if the court finds that the petitioner would have no state remedy were he to return

to the state court, then his claims are considered procedurally defaulted. Teague v. Lane, 489

U.S. 288, 298-99 (1989); see also Sandgathe v. Maass, 314 F.3d 371, 376 (9th Cir. 2002) (a

defendant's claim is procedurally defaulted when it is clear that the state court would hold

the claim procedurally barred). The federal court will not consider these claims unless the

petitioner can demonstrate that a miscarriage of justice would result, or establish cause for

his noncompliance and actual prejudice. See Dretke v. Haley, 124 S.Ct. 1847, 1851-52

(2004); Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 321 (1995); Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722,

750-51 (1991); Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 495-96 (1986).

1. Ground One

Petitioner alleges in ground one that his lawyer provided ineffective assistance by

failing to contact and interview witnesses who could corroborate Petitioner's version of

events. In addition, Petitioner claims that the trial court erred by refusing to appoint a

different attorney to represent Petitioner at the trial. Respondents argue that the claims in

ground one are procedurally defaulted because Petitioner failed to fairly present them as

federal claims in the state court, thus depriving the state court of the opportunity to address

them. A review of Petitioner's "Motion for Clerical Mistakes," which the Arizona Court of

Appeals construed as a pro per supplemental brief, shows that Petitioner raised four claims.

Case 2:05-cv-02593-DGC Document 14 Filed 10/18/06 Page 5 of 9
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

 The time has passed to seek post-conviction relief in state court under Rule 32.4(a)

of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure and Petitioner has not shown that any of the

exceptions to the time limits under Rule 32.1(d), (e), (f), (g) or (h) apply to him.

- 6 -

Doc. #13, Exh. KK, LL, MM. None of the four claims describes a federal legal theory on

which the claims are based. Moreover, the only one of the four that relates to counsel

challenges the court's failure to consider a post-trial motion requesting a new attorney. Doc.

#13, Exh. LL. Thus, Petitioner's allegations in ground one were not fairly presented on direct

appeal. 

The claims in ground one were also not fairly presented in the state post-conviction

relief process. After Petitioner's pro per post-conviction was rejected because it exceeded

the page limit, the trial court gave Petitioner another opportunity by setting a new deadline,

which Petitioner failed to meet. Doc. #13, Exh. UU. As a result, the trial court dismissed

the post-conviction proceedings. Doc. #13, Exh. WW. Petitioner did not seek review in the

Arizona Court of Appeals. 

By failing to fairly present ground one in the state court, Petitioner has not exhausted

his state court remedies. Moreover, Petitioner would no longer have a remedy if he returned

to the state court.3

 As a result, his claims in ground one are procedurally defaulted.

Petitioner has not established cause for his failure to raise the claims in state court, nor has

he shown actual prejudice. Petitioner has also not demonstrated that a miscarriage of justice

would result if these claims are not addressed. For these reasons, the court will recommend

that the claims in ground one be denied. 

2. Ground Two

Petitioner contends in ground two that the evidence used by the State to convict him

was obtained pursuant to an unlawful arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Petitioner does not explain in ground two why he believes his arrest was unlawful but

complains that he made requests to his lawyer and the prosecutor to show him the evidence

the State intended to use against him.

Case 2:05-cv-02593-DGC Document 14 Filed 10/18/06 Page 6 of 9
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 -

The pro per supplemental brief submitted to the Arizona Court of Appeals on direct

review contains no Fourth Amendment claim. Petitioner does assert that he never saw any

of the evidence before trial but he fails to allege a violation of federal law or otherwise

present a federal legal theory on which the claim is based. The claim was therefore not fairly

presented on direct appeal.

Moreover, for the same reasons set forth in ground one, the claim was not fairly

presented in the state post-conviction relief process. Petitioner did not seek review in the

Arizona Court of Appeals after the trial court dismissed his post-conviction proceedings. 

By failing to fairly present ground two in the state court, Petitioner has not exhausted

his state court remedies and he would no longer have a remedy if he returned to the state

court. As a result, his claim in ground two is procedurally defaulted. Petitioner has not

established cause for his failure to raise the issue in state court, nor has he shown actual

prejudice. Petitioner has also not demonstrated that a miscarriage of justice would result if

this issue is not addressed. For these reasons, the court will recommend that the claim in

ground two be denied.

3. Ground Three

Petitioner alleges in ground three that he had no legal representation at his restitution

hearing and was ordered to pay $6,523.00 as restitution to the victims. Petitioner's pro per

supplemental brief submitted to the Arizona Court of Appeals on direct review contains no

claim regarding representation at his restitution hearing. Further, this claim was not fairly

presented in the state post-conviction relief process because Petitioner did not seek review

in the Arizona Court of Appeals after the trial court dismissed his post-conviction

proceedings.

 By failing to fairly present ground three in the state court, Petitioner has not exhausted

his state court remedies and he would no longer have a remedy if he returned to the state

court. As a result, his claim in ground three is procedurally defaulted. Petitioner has not

established cause for his failure to raise the issue in state court, nor has he shown actual

prejudice. Petitioner has also not demonstrated that a miscarriage of justice would result if

Case 2:05-cv-02593-DGC Document 14 Filed 10/18/06 Page 7 of 9
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 -

this issue is not addressed. For these reasons, the court will recommend that the claim in

ground three be denied.

4. Ground Four

Petitioner alleges in ground four that his lawyer failed to show him the evidence that

the State intended to use against him. He claims that he did not enter a plea agreement when

one was offered because he had never been shown any evidence. Although he doesn't

specifically allege it, Petitioner appears to be raising another ineffective assistance of counsel

claim. 

Petitioner raised a similar claim in his pro per supplemental brief on direct appeal.

However, that claim alleged that the State failed to show him the evidence it intended to use

against him. The claim was not raised as an ineffective assistance of counsel claim as it is

here in his habeas petition. Indeed, the Arizona Court of Appeals characterized the claim in

its Memorandum Decision as an allegation that the State failed to disclose evidence. Doc.

#13, Exh. PP at 3. Thus, Petitioner failed to fairly present it as a federal ineffective

assistance of counsel claim in his direct appeal. Additionally, this claim was not fairly

presented in the state post-conviction relief process because Petitioner did not seek review

in the Arizona Court of Appeals after the trial court dismissed his post-conviction

proceedings.

By failing to fairly present ground four in the state court, Petitioner has not exhausted

his state court remedies and he would no longer have a remedy if he returned to the state

court. As a result, his claim in ground four is procedurally defaulted. Petitioner has not

established cause for his failure to raise the issue in state court, nor has he shown actual

prejudice. Petitioner has also not demonstrated that a miscarriage of justice would result if

this issue is not addressed. For these reasons, the court will recommend that the claim in

ground four be denied.

 

B. Conclusion

Case 2:05-cv-02593-DGC Document 14 Filed 10/18/06 Page 8 of 9
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 -

Having determined that all of Petitioner's claims are procedurally defaulted, the court

will recommend that the petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED:

That the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. #1)

be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment. The

parties shall have ten days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within

which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R.

Civ. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72. Thereafter, the parties have ten days within which to file a

response to the objections. Failure to timely file objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report

and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by

the district court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to timely file objections to any factual determinations of the

Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the

findings of fact in an order of judgement entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's

recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

DATED this 17th day of October, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-02593-DGC Document 14 Filed 10/18/06 Page 9 of 9