Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-05076/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-05076-0/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

Danny Wise,

Petitioner,

v. 

David Shinn,1 Director of the Arizona 

Department of Corrections, Attorney 

General of the State of Arizona,

Respondents.

No. CV 19-05076 PHX MTL (CDB)

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE MICHAEL T. LIBURDI:

Petitioner Danny Wise, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a petition 

seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on August 30, 2019. (ECF 

No. 1). The Arizona Court of Appeals characterized the charged crimes and Wise’s state 

criminal proceedings as follows:

Wise was indicted on eight counts of fraud and twenty-two counts of 

theft based upon events occurring between June 2006 and April 2008 while 

Wise was engaged as the victims’ accountant. At trial, six victims, several of 

whom were family or close friends of Wise, testified against Wise, a certified 

public accountant, regularly prepared their tax returns, represented he had 

filed returns or requests for an extension to file returns with the Internal 

Revenue Service and state tax agencies (collectively, the IRS) between 2006 

and 2008, and further represented he had paid estimated taxes on their behalf. 

1 Effective October 21, 2019, David Shinn replaced Charles Ryan as Director of the 

Arizona Department of Corrections. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Shinn is 

automatically substituted as the party of record.

Case 2:19-cv-05076-MTL Document 38 Filed 05/06/20 Page 1 of 5
- 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

Wise advised the victims of the amount he allegedly paid on their behalf, and 

they “reimbursed” him those sums. However, the IRS was never paid.

Although amounts varied from victim to victim, the total sum Wise 

took was nearly $1 million. Each victim testified he or she primarily 

communicated directly with Wise on all issues but occasionally relayed to or 

received routine information from Wise’s assistant, and none of the victims 

were aware of any other employees or partners working with Wise.

When confronted by the victims, Wise blamed the IRS for misplacing 

or misapplying the funds and promised each victim he would resolve the 

issue. After months of delay, Wise was ultimately unable to document that 

the checks had ever been sent to or negotiated by the IRS. At trial, a 

representative from Wise’s bank testified that none of the checks he wrote to 

the IRS for payment of the victims’ taxes had ever been presented for 

payment. Wise ultimately paid the full amount owed to the IRS by Neil B. 

and Beth S., including interest and penalties, after they reported his conduct 

to law enforcement; the other victims, however, received nothing.

In mid–2008, three of the victims filed complaints against Wise with 

the Arizona State Board of Accountancy. Wise failed to respond to the 

complaints in writing as required by law and, in December 2008, consented 

to the revocation of his certification.

When confronted by the police in early 2009, Wise advised he had 

been an accountant for twenty-five years, but retired approximately two years 

prior. He stated he had legal issues with a previous business partner resulting 

in difficulties with his banking institution.

Wise testified in his defense at trial. He characterized himself as an 

“absentee owner” of an extremely busy accounting firm who, between 2004 

and 2008, delegated more and more responsibility to his assistant to manage 

both his professional and personal affairs so he could develop his business 

and spend more time with his family. As a result, Wise’s assistant had 

complete access to his business and personal information, including personal 

identification information, accounts, passwords, and the company 

checkbook. But, according to Wise’s testimony, as his business continued to 

grow, he did not have time to monitor what occurred within the office.

Wise admitted receiving funds from the victims as “repayment” for 

their tax liability and acknowledged being ultimately responsible for what 

happened within his office, but denied any intent to steal money and denied 

knowledge of where the funds were. He testified his signature was “a 

scribble” that could have been signed by anyone, including his assistant, and 

that he assumed his assistant was performing the ministerial tasks he assigned 

including forwarding payment to the IRS on behalf of the victims as 

promised and confirming the IRS later negotiated the checks. Wise testified 

that only when he closed his business in late 2008 did he realize his files were 

not well kept and his reliance upon his assistant may have been misplaced, 

Case 2:19-cv-05076-MTL Document 38 Filed 05/06/20 Page 2 of 5
- 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

intimating she could have taken the funds and hidden from him that the IRS 

was never paid. In essence, Wise conceded an error in business judgment 

amounting only to negligence or malpractice.

A forensic accountant testified that Wise’s practice of extending his 

own funds to pay his clients’ estimated taxes was not illegal or unethical but 

expressed concern that Wise had no readily apparent or effective internal 

control procedures and placed too much trust in his staff. Although the expert 

was unable to exclude Wise as having perpetrated the scheme, neither could 

he exclude the assistant or Wise’s partner in a boxing promotion business 

that operated from the same office.

The jury found Wise guilty on all counts. It also found the State had 

proven beyond a reasonable doubt that all of the offenses were committed 

for pecuniary gain and caused emotional and/or financial harm to the victims; 

all but counts 29 and 30 involved the taking of property in an amount 

sufficient to be an aggravating circumstance. The trial court classified the 

offenses as non-repetitive and non-dangerous and sentenced Wise to slightly 

aggravated terms of 7.5 years’ imprisonment on counts 1, 2, and 17 to run 

concurrently with each other; slightly aggravated terms of 5 years’

imprisonment on counts 3 through 16 to run concurrently with each other and 

with counts 1, 2, and 17; slightly aggravated terms of 7.5 years’

imprisonment on counts 18 and 19 to run concurrently with each other and 

consecutive to counts 1 through 17; slightly aggravated terms of 7.5 years’

imprisonment on counts 20 through 25 to run concurrently with each other 

and consecutive to counts 1 through 19; slightly aggravated terms of 7.5 

years’ imprisonment on counts 26 and 28 to run concurrently with each other 

and consecutive to counts 1 through 25; a slightly aggravated term of 5 years’

imprisonment on count 27 to run concurrently with counts 26 and 28 and 

consecutive to counts 1 through 25; and the presumptive term of 5 years’

imprisonment on counts 29 and 30 to run concurrently with each other and 

consecutive to counts 1 through 28.

State v. Wise, 2015 WL 6696899, at *1-2 (Ariz. Ct. App. Nov. 3, 2015). The imposed term 

of imprisonment was an aggregate 35 years. 

In his federal habeas petition Wise asserted claims of ineffective assistance of 

counsel and violations of his right to due process of law in his state criminal proceedings. 

(ECF No. 1). Respondents answered the habeas petition on December 6, 2019, asserting 

some of Wise’s claims were procedurally defaulted, some were not cognizable, and the rest 

should be denied on the merits. (ECF No. 18). The Answer is 66 pages in length and 

attached to the Answer are 1688 pages of exhibits. (ECF No. 18, 18-1 through 18-8). Wise 

Case 2:19-cv-05076-MTL Document 38 Filed 05/06/20 Page 3 of 5
- 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

signed and mailed a reply in support of his petition for federal habeas relief on March 26, 

2020, which was docketed March 30, 2020. (ECF No. 36 at 5). 

On April 10, 2020, mail sent to Wise by the Court was returned as undeliverable 

with the notation that Wise was deceased. Arizona Department of Corrections public 

records indicate Wise, who was approximately 63 years of age, died on March 29, 2020.

The Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person 

in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court only on the ground that he is “in custody 

in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254(a). The death of a petitioner renders the instant petition moot. See Dove v. United 

States, 423 U.S. 325, 325 (1976) (per curiam) (dismissing a petition for a writ of certiorari 

because the petitioner had died); Griffey v. Lindsey, 349 F.3d 1157, 1157 (9th Cir. 2003)

(dismissing appeal of denial of § 2254 relief because the petitioner was deceased); Burbine 

v. Scribner, 445 F. App’x 923, 924 (9th Cir. 2011) (same); Bruno v. Secretary, Fla. Dep’t 

of Corr., 700 F.3d 445, 445 (11th Cir. 2012) (“The death of the habeas petitioner renders 

a habeas action moot.”). Because Wise is deceased, his petition for federal habeas relief is 

moot. Accordingly,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that the petition at ECF No. 1 be dismissed as moot. 

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.

Pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall have 

fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which 

to file specific written objections with the Court. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen (14) 

days within which to file a response to the objections. Pursuant to Rule 7.2, Local Rules of 

Civil Procedure for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, objections 

to the Report and Recommendation may not exceed seventeen (17) pages in length.

Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determinations of the 

Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right to de novo appellate 

Case 2:19-cv-05076-MTL Document 38 Filed 05/06/20 Page 4 of 5
- 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

consideration of the issues. See United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th 

Cir. 2003) (en banc). Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determinations 

of the Magistrate Judge will constitute a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the 

findings of fact and conclusions of law in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the 

recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

Dated this 5th day of May, 2020.

Case 2:19-cv-05076-MTL Document 38 Filed 05/06/20 Page 5 of 5