Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00333/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00333-1/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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Robert Michael Hollenback,

Petitioner, 

vs. 

Charles Ryan, et al., 

Respondent.

No. CV 10-00333-TUC-FRZ 

ORDER 

Presently pending before the Court is Respondents’ motion for reconsideration of 

this Court’s Order and Judgment filed on September 20, 2013, granting relief on Ground 

Four of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) filed by Robert Michael 

Hollenback. (Doc. 18.) Respondents challenge this Court’s finding that the state court’s 

determination that trial counsel’s decision not to request a lesser included instruction on 

attempted child molestation was a sound strategic decision was an unreasonable 

determination under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). Respondents also challenge this Court’s 

determination that prejudice was manifest by the trial court’s failure to give the lesser 

included instruction because it would have been supported by the evidence. For the 

reasons stated below, the Court grants the motion for reconsideration, in part, and denies 

Ground Four of the Petition (Doc. 1). 

The factual and procedural background of this matter has been previously 

summarized in this Court’s order dated September 19, 2013, and will not be repeated 

here. 

Case 4:10-cv-00333-FRZ Document 31 Filed 05/15/14 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

"The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or 

fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 

909 (3rd Cir. 1985). At the outset, the Court notes that motions to reconsider are 

appropriate only in rare circumstances: 

The motion to reconsider would be appropriate where, for example, the 

court has patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside 

the adversarial issues presented to the court by the parties, or has made an 

error not of reasoning but of apprehension. A further basis for a motion to 

reconsider would be a controlling or significant change in the law or facts 

since the submission of the issue to the court. Such problems rarely arise 

and the motion to reconsider should be equally rare. 

Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 

1983); see also, Sullivan v. Faras-RLS Group, Ltd., 795 F. Supp. 305, 308-09 (D. Ariz. 

1992). 

A motion for reconsideration should not be used to ask a court "to rethink what the 

court had already thought through--rightly or wrongly". Above the Belt, 99 F.R.D. at 

101; see also, Refrigeration Sales Co. v. Mitchell-Jackson, Inc., 605 F. Supp. 6, 7 (N.D. 

Ill. 1983). 

Respondents’ motion is devoid of the necessary showing in regards to this Court’s 

determination that the state courts acted unreasonably in determining that counsel’s 

decision was strategic. The appellate court relied on the trial court’s belief that the 

decision was a reasonable tactical decision. The trial court’s decision, in turn, was based 

on the trial court’s misunderstanding that the lesser-included instruction would have been 

inconsistent with the defense strategy. Because this was the only stated basis for the trial 

court’s ruling, and it was incorrect, the determination was unreasonable. The Court will 

not rethink this decision here. 

 Nonetheless, Respondents have made the necessary showing to merit 

reconsideration on the prejudice prong of this Court’s ruling. This Court determined that 

prejudice under the controlling Supreme Court precedent in Strickland v. Washington, 

Case 4:10-cv-00333-FRZ Document 31 Filed 05/15/14 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

466 U.S. 668 (1984), was demonstrated because, had it been requested, the jury 

instruction was supported by the evidence and the trial court acknowledged that it would 

have been given. As Respondents correctly argue, contrary to this Court’s finding, 

Petitioner must show not just that the instruction would have been given, but that a 

reasonable probability exists that, had the jurors been instructed on the lesser, they would 

have convicted of that offense and not the charged offense. Petitioner does not contest 

this argument in his response to the motion for reconsideration. See (Doc. 30). 

 This Court is bound to presume that the jury applied the correct legal standards in 

reaching its conclusion. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 695 (explaining that in assessing 

whether a defendant was prejudiced by ineffective assistance, a court should presume that 

the decisionmaker “reasonably, conscientiously, and impartially” applied the correct legal 

standards). In this case, it would be speculative to reach the conclusion that there was a 

reasonable probability the outcome would have been different simply because the lesser 

included instruction would have been given because this would presume the jurors failed 

to follow their instructions in convicting Petitioner when there was a reasonable doubt 

that he committed the charged offense. See e.g. Lee v. Schriro, 327 Fed.Appx. 699, 701 

(9th Cir. 2009) (“Because the jury was instructed on robbery, yet convicted Lee of armed 

robbery, there is no reason to conclude that the verdict would have been different had the 

jury also been instructed on the even lesser offense of theft.”). Thus, even if counsel’s 

performance was deficient under Strickland’s first prong, Petitioner has failed to 

demonstrate prejudice under the relevant controlling federal law, and he is not entitled to 

relief on this Ground. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) Respondents’ motion for reconsideration and to amend/alter the judgment is 

GRANTED in part. (Doc. 20.) 

(2) This Court’s Order (Doc. 18) entered on September 20, 2013 is AMENDED to 

Case 4:10-cv-00333-FRZ Document 31 Filed 05/15/14 Page 3 of 4
- 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 

reflect the denial of Ground Four with prejudice for the reasons stated above. 

(3) This Court’s Order is FURTHER AMENDED to vacate this Court’s order 

directing the state court to vacate Count 1 of Petitioner’s conviction. 

(4) The Clerk of Court shall amend the Judgment (Doc. 19) to reflect that the 

Petition (Doc. 1) is denied with prejudice and the action is dismissed in its entirety.1

 Dated this 14th day of May, 2014. 

 

1 Petitioner’s motion for a certificate of appealability (Doc. 23) is denied. Before 

Petitioner can appeal this Court's judgment, a certificate of appealability must issue. See 28 

U.S.C. §2253(c) and Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1). Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b) 

requires the district court that rendered a judgment denying the petition made pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. §2254 to "either issue a certificate of appealability or state why a certificate should not 

issue." Additionally, 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2) provides that a certificate may issue "only if the 

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." In the 

certificate, the court must indicate which specific issues satisfy this showing. See 28 U.S.C. 

§2253(c)(3). A substantial showing is made when the resolution of an issue of appeal is 

debatable among reasonable jurists, if courts could resolve the issues differently, or if the issue 

deserves further proceedings. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). Upon 

review of the record in light of the standards for granting a certificate of appealability, the Court 

concludes that a certificate shall not issue as the resolution of the petition is not debatable among 

reasonable jurists and does not deserve further proceedings. 

Case 4:10-cv-00333-FRZ Document 31 Filed 05/15/14 Page 4 of 4