Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01035/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01035-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Matthew Woodland, 

Petitioner,

vs.

Sharon Somberg, et al., 

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-1035-PHX-PGR (LOA)

 

 ORDER

Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

Judge Anderson in light of Petitioner’s Objection to Magistrate Recommendation

(doc. #15), the Court finds that the petitioner’s objections should be overruled as

having no legal merit.

First, the petitioner’s contention, set forth in Ground I of his petition, that his

trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to inform him

that only the jury, rather than a judge, had to determine whether he was on

probation at the time he committed the crime at issue for sentence enhancement

purposes is incorrect as a matter of law. As the Magistrate Judge correctly noted,

this is not an Apprendi issue because the determination of a defendant’s onprobation status for purposes of A.R.S. § 13-604.02(B) does not expose a

defendant to increased punishment as it impacts only the mandatory minimum

Case 2:06-cv-01035-PGR Document 17 Filed 07/25/07 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

- 2 -

sentence.

Furthermore, the petitioner’s additional contention in Ground I of his

petition that his counsel was ineffective in recommending that the petitioner

accept the plea offer because the petitioner received the presumptive sentence

notwithstanding that the on-probation allegation was dropped is also incorrect as

a matter of law. As the Magistrate Judge correctly noted, the petitioner received

a benefit under the plea agreement despite having been given the presumptive

sentence because the dropping of the on-probation allegation allowed the

petitioner to have the opportunity he would not otherwise have had of arguing for

a mitigated sentence, i.e. a sentence of less than the presumptive term.

Second, the petitioner’s contention, as set forth in Ground II of his petition,

that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by withholding a conflict of

interest from him involving her office’s prior representation of a co-defendant is

also incorrect as a matter of law. As the Magistrate Judge correctly noted, (1) the

alleged conflict was based on a successive representation, not a joint

representation, and thus did not result in a presumption of prejudice under U.S.

Supreme Court case law, and (2) the petitioner has not satisfied the standard of

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), because he has neither

established that an actual conflict of interest existed, nor has he shown any

prejudice resulting from the alleged conflict of interest. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation

(doc. #14) is accepted and adopted by the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus by a Person in State Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (doc. #1) is

denied and that this action is dismissed. The Clerk of the Court shall enter

Case 2:06-cv-01035-PGR Document 17 Filed 07/25/07 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

- 3 -

judgment accordingly.

DATED this 24th day of July, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01035-PGR Document 17 Filed 07/25/07 Page 3 of 3