Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02501/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02501-0/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 

Verne Leslie Watson, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Ron Credio, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-14-2501-PHX-DLR (DKD)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO THE HONORABLE DOUGLAS L. RAYES, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE: 

 Verne Leslie Watson filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on November 12, 

2014, challenging his conviction in Maricopa County Superior Court for one count of 

molestation of a child. His petition argues that his due process rights were denied from 

various evidentiary rulings at his trial. As explained below, the Court recommends that 

Watson’s petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. 

BACKGROUND

 On December 12, 2005, at the conclusion of an eight day trial in the Maricopa 

County Superior Court, a jury found Watson guilty of one count of molestation of a child, 

a class 2 felony. (Doc. 11, Exs. W, X) Watson moved for a new trial. (Doc. 11, Ex. Y) 

The Superior Court denied his motion and sentenced Watson to a mitigated term of 15 

years. (Doc. 11, Ex. BB) Watson moved to vacate the judgment and, at the conclusion 

of briefing, the Court denied this motion. (Doc. 11, Exs. CC, DD, EE, FF) Watson 

Case 2:14-cv-02501-DLR Document 12 Filed 04/28/15 Page 1 of 6
- 2 - 

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 

again moved to vacate his judgment, dismiss charges, and restore his civil rights and gun 

rights; the Court denied his motion. (Doc. 11, Ex. FF) 

 Direct Appeal. Watson timely appealed; his counsel found no arguable issues of 

law and filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). (Doc. 

11, Ex. HH) At Watson’s request, the Anders brief also included allegations of 

ineffective assistance of counsel, insufficient evidence, incorrect evidentiary rulings, and 

legal error for failing to vacate the judgment. (Id.) On July 10, 2007, the Court of 

Appeals filed its memorandum decision affirming Watson’s conviction and sentence. 

(Doc. 11, Ex. II) Watson moved for reconsideration, and at the conclusion of briefing, 

the Court of Appeals ordered a modification to one sentence in its memorandum decision 

on March 17, 2008. (Doc. 11, Exs. JJ, KK, LL, MM, NN) Watson did not petition the 

Arizona Supreme Court for review. (Doc. 11, Ex. OO) 

 First Rule 32 Proceeding. On July 24, 2007, Watson filed a Notice of PostConviction Relief. (Doc. 11, Ex. PP) On May 22, 2008, Watson, through appointed 

counsel, filed a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief arguing that the State had failed to 

disclose material evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). (Doc. 

11, Exs. PP, RR) At the conclusion of briefing, the Superior Court thoroughly analyzed 

this argument, found no Brady violation occurred, and summarily dismissed Watson’s 

petition on October 15, 2008. (Doc. 11, Exs. SS, TT, UU) 

 On November 5, 2008, Watson, through court-appointed counsel, petitioned the 

Court of Appeals for review. (Doc. 11, Ex. VV) The State responded and, on December 

30, 2009, the Court of Appeals denied his petition. (Doc. 11, Exs. WW, XX) On March 

30, 2010, Watson filed a pro per petition for review in the Arizona Supreme Court which 

was denied on July 7, 2010. (Doc. 11, Exs. YY, ZZ) 

 Second Rule 32 Proceeding. On December 21, 2012, Watson, through new 

counsel, filed a Notice of Post-Conviction Relief in Superior Court which stated that it 

was filed under Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure 32.1(f) and (h). (Doc. 11, Ex. 

AAA) On February 25, 2013, Watson, represented by the same counsel, filed a Petition 

Case 2:14-cv-02501-DLR Document 12 Filed 04/28/15 Page 2 of 6
- 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 

for Post-Conviction Relief and argued that “no federal claims were presented so the one 

year clock never effectively began to run. This petition, whether granted or denied, is 

intended to correct that defect.” (Doc 11, Ex. BBB at 4:8-10) The Court concluded that 

his claims were more appropriately analyzed under Rule 32.1(a) and summarily 

dismissed his Rule 32 proceeding because he had failed to state a claim for which relief 

can be granted in an untimely or successive Rule 32 proceeding. (Doc. 11, Ex. CCC) 

Watson moved for reconsideration, the State responded, and on May 2, 2013, the Court 

denied his motion. (Doc. 11, Exs. DDD, EEE, FFF, GGG) 

 On September 13, 2013, Watson, again represented by the same counsel, 

petitioned the Arizona Court of Appeals for review of the Superior Court’s dismissal of 

his second Rule 32 proceedings. (Doc. 11, Ex. HHH) The State replied and, on March 

12, 2015, the Court of Appeals granted review and denied relief. (Doc. 11, Ex. III; 1 CACR 13-06611

). 

 Habeas Petition. On November 12, 2014, Watson, represented by the same 

counsel as his second Rule 32 proceedings, filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus in this Court. 

(Doc. 1) His Petition argues that his due process rights were denied from various 

evidentiary rulings at his trial. Respondents contend that his Petition is untimely and that 

he is not entitled to equitable tolling. (Doc. 11) This Court agrees and recommends that 

this Petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. 

Watson’s Petition is Untimely. 

 A state prisoner seeking federal habeas relief from a state court conviction is 

required to file the petition within one year of “the date on which the judgment became 

final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such 

review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). The period of limitations is statutorily tolled during 

the time in which a “properly filed application for State post-conviction or other 

 

1

 As of the date of the Report and Recommendation, it appears that Watson has not petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court for review. 

Case 2:14-cv-02501-DLR Document 12 Filed 04/28/15 Page 3 of 6
- 4 - 

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 

collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending” in the State 

courts. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). 

The Arizona Court of Appeals ordered a modification to its memorandum decision 

affirming Watson’s conviction and sentence on March 17, 2008. Watson did not petition 

the Arizona Supreme Court for review. Thus, Watson’s conviction became final on April 

21, 2008, the expiration of his time period to petition the Arizona Supreme Court for 

review of his direct appeal. Hemmerle v. Schriro, 495 F.3d 1069, 1073-74 (9th Cir. 2007) 

(“direct appeal [i]s final upon the expiration of the time for seeking review of the Court 

of Appeals decision in the Arizona Supreme Court”); State v. Savage, 117 Ariz. 535, 573 

P.2d 1388 (1978) (applying Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 1.3(a)). 

 Before his conviction became final, Watson filed a Notice for Post-Conviction 

Relief thereby tolling his period of limitations under Section 2244(d)(2). Isley v. Ariz. 

Dept. of Corrections, 383 F.3d 1054, 1055-56 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The language and 

structure of the Arizona post-conviction rules demonstrate that the proceedings begin 

with the filing of the Notice.”). Watson’s tolling continued until his post-conviction 

proceedings concluded on July 7, 2010, when the Arizona Supreme Court dismissed his 

petition for review of the trial court’s dismissal of his post-conviction proceedings. 

Hemmerle, 495 F.3d at 1077 (collateral proceedings conclude when the Arizona Supreme 

Court denied petition for review). Accordingly, Watson’s one year limitations period 

began on July 8, 2010, and he was required to file his habeas petition in this court by July 

8, 2011. 

 For over two years after the Arizona Supreme Court dismissed his petition for 

review, Watson did not have any proceedings pending in the State courts or in this Court. 

Accordingly, his one year timeframe expired and, once expired, it could not be revived 

by subsequent filings. Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 413 (2005) (no AEDPA 

tolling from untimely state post-conviction petitions); Ferguson v. Palmateer, 321 F.3d 

820, 823 (9th Cir. 2003) (“section 2244(d) does not permit the reinitiation of the 

limitations period that has ended before the state petition was filed”). His second Rule 32 

Case 2:14-cv-02501-DLR Document 12 Filed 04/28/15 Page 4 of 6
- 5 - 

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 

proceeding was not “properly filed” within the meaning of Section 2244(d)(2) and, 

therefore, it did not toll the one year limitations bar. Hemmerle, 495 F.3d at 1072-73. 

Therefore, his petition in this Court, filed on November 12, 2014, is untimely. 

Watson is Not Entitled to Equitable Tolling.

 Watson’s Petition is untimely unless he can show that he is entitled to equitable 

tolling. To make such a showing, Watson must demonstrate both that he pursued his 

rights diligently and that some extraordinary circumstance prevented him from filing his 

petition. Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649 (2010). Watson’s petition does not 

address the issue of timeliness and does not attempt to meet either prong of this test. 

 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Verne Leslie Watson’s petition for 

writ of habeas corpus be denied and dismissed with prejudice. 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a Certificate of Appealability and 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be denied because dismissal of the Petition 

is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the ruling 

debatable. 

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 fourteen 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); Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, 

the parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure 

timely to 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 timely to 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 

Case 2:14-cv-02501-DLR Document 12 Filed 04/28/15 Page 5 of 6
- 6 - 

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 

order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 

72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Dated this 27th day of April, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-02501-DLR Document 12 Filed 04/28/15 Page 6 of 6