Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01224/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01224-1/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 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Juan Manuel Reynoso, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-13-01224-PHX-SRB

ORDER 

 Petitioner, Juan Manuel Reynoso, filed a Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ 

of Habeas Corpus raising two grounds for relief. Petitioner claimed that he was denied 

effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment to the United States 

Constitution because his defense lawyer failed to investigate and present evidence of the 

victim’s toxicology report, which showed that the victim was under the influence of 

oxycodone and alcohol at the time of his death. Petitioner also claimed that his counsel 

was ineffective because he erroneously advised Petitioner that his actions were reckless 

and without justification. Respondents filed a Limited Answer requesting that the Court 

dismiss the Petition with prejudice because Petitioner’s claims were procedurally barred. 

Petitioner filed a Reply in support of his Petition. 

 On January 28, 2014 the Magistrate Judge issued his Report and Recommendation 

finding that Petitioner had exhausted his ineffective assistance of counsel claims by fairly 

presenting the substance of those claims to the Arizona Court of Appeals and 

recommending that the claims be denied on the merits because the Arizona Court of 

Case 2:13-cv-01224-SRB Document 18 Filed 03/12/14 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

Appeals did not err in concluding that Petitioner was not denied the effective assistance 

of counsel. 

 Petitioner filed timely written objections on February 11, 2014 in which he argued 

that the oxycodone reported in the victim’s toxicology report was not known by 

Petitioner until after he signed the plea agreement. The significance of the report, 

according to Petitioner, is that it shows defense counsel’s advice to accept the plea 

bargain was incorrect. Petitioner states that his entire argument is that, because his 

defense counsel made no mention of the victim’s blood showing a high level of 

oxycodone at the time of his death, this shows that counsel either failed to investigate 

exculpatory evidence or failed to see the relevant nature of the significance of the 

oxycodone. Petitioner also objects to the Magistrate Judge concluding that he failed to 

show objective evidence establishing that he was improperly advised and would have 

proceeded to trial but for counsel’s advice. 

 Petitioner also devotes several pages of his objections to discussion of the 

exhaustion requirement. Because the Magistrate Judge determined that Petitioner had 

exhausted his claims and made a recommendation on the merits, this discussion is 

irrelevant. 

 While there is a question about whether Petitioner fairly presented his claims to 

the Arizona State Court, the Magistrate Judge correctly noted that notwithstanding any 

failure to exhaust claims the federal court can proceed with a denial of the claims on the 

merits. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that both of Petitioner’s claims, 

while stated differently in his federal habeas petition than presented to the Arizona Court 

of Appeals, relate to his claim that counsel was ineffective in advising him to accept a 

plea agreement and plead guilty rather than proceeding to trial and asserting self-defense. 

The Court also agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Petitioner has failed to show that his 

counsel’s advice was not within the range of competence demanded of criminal 

attorneys. The Arizona Court of Appeals concluded as a factual matter that Petitioner 

had been apprised of Arizona law relative to self-defense and that he choose to plead 

Case 2:13-cv-01224-SRB Document 18 Filed 03/12/14 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

guilty to manslaughter to obtain a lesser sentence than he would have received had he 

gone to trial and been unsuccessful in his claim of self-defense. These factual findings 

were made by the Arizona Court of Appeals with full knowledge that Petitioner’s claim 

in his Petition for Review was that he was brutally attacked by a drug induced armed 

victim, the same claim he makes here in emphasizing the toxicology report. The Court 

agrees with the findings of the Magistrate Judge that Petitioner has failed to bring 

forward objective evidence indicating that his counsel’s advice on these facts about 

accepting a plea bargain was incorrect. Petitioner has failed to show that he was 

improperly advised and would have proceeded to trial but for his counsel’s advice. 

 IT IS ORDERED overruling Petitioner’s Objection the Report and 

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge as the Order of this Court. (Doc. 16) 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying a certificate of Appealability and leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because Petitioner has not made a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 

 Dated this 12th day of March, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-01224-SRB Document 18 Filed 03/12/14 Page 3 of 3