Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01217/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01217-1/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

Gregory A. Gibson,

Petitioner,

vs.

L. Blair, et al.,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-1217-PHX-PGR (ECV)

 

 ORDER

Having reviewed de novo Magistrate Judge Voss’ Report and

Recommendation in light of the petitioner’s Objections to Magistrate’s Report and

Recommendation (doc. #18), the Court finds that the petitioner’s objections

should be overruled as being without legal merit.

First, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge correctly determined

that the petitioner procedurally defaulted on Grounds Two and Three of his

habeas petition inasmuch as a review of the record establishes that the petitioner

failed to fairly present either of these claims to the Arizona Court of Appeals and

that he failed to fairly present Ground Three to the Arizona Supreme Court. The

Court also concludes that the petitioner has not, either through his petition or

through his Objections, sufficiently demonstrated either cause and prejudice or a

fundamental miscarriage of justice.

Case 2:07-cv-01217-PGR Document 20 Filed 12/19/08 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Second, as to Ground One, the Court further concludes that the Magistrate

Judge correctly determined that the petitioner’s enhanced sentence was not

imposed in violation of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), as argued by

the petitioner. The Court rejects the petitioner’s argument in his Objections that

the legal justification for his enhanced sentence, the Arizona Supreme Court’s

decision in State v. Martinez, 115 P.3d 618 (Ariz.), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1044

(2005), was wrongly decided. The Martinez court’s holding that only a single

aggravating factor need by found by the jury to enable the sentencing judge to

consider other aggravating factors not determined by the jury in order to select a

sentence within the new maximum sentencing range made possible by the jury’s

finding is not contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established

federal law as determined by the United States Supreme Court in Blakely. 

Therefore,

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

(doc. #16) 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 is denied and

that this action is dismissed with prejudice. The Court of the Court shall enter

judgment accordingly.

DATED this 18th day of December, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01217-PGR Document 20 Filed 12/19/08 Page 2 of 2