Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00101/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00101-1/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 1

 While the Report and Recommendation does not expressly refer to the

Amended Petition, it is clear that the Report and Recommendation is directed at

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Andrija James Balas,

 Petitioner,

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

 Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-0101-PHX-PGR (LOA)

 

 ORDER

 

Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

Judge Anderson in light of the petitioner’s Petition for Re-Consideration on Ruling

by Magistrate (Doc. 23), which the Court construes as the petitioner’s objections

to the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge

correctly determined that the petitioner’s timely petition for writ of habeas corpus,

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, should be dismissed.

The gist of the petitioner’s first claim in his Amended Petition (Doc. 10) is

that his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was violated when he

was forced to appear before the jury in jail clothes and shackles.1

 The Court

Case 2:10-cv-00101-PGR Document 24 Filed 08/02/11 Page 1 of 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

the claims raised in the Amended Petition.

2

 The Arizona Court of Appeals concluded that the petitioner had either

invited or waived any error regarding his in-custody appearance because he

made the decision to appear before the jury in jail clothes and restraints by

choosing not to change into street clothes.

3

 The Court agrees that this claim also fails on its merits because the

petitioner cannot establish any actual prejudice from the jury viewing him in

prison clothing and restraints inasmuch as the State presented overwhelming

evidence of his guilt. See Cox v. Ayers, 613 F.3d 883, 891 (9th Cir.2010) (Court

concluded in a habeas proceeding that the unconstitutional shackling of a

defendant does not have any prejudicial effect on a guilty verdict if the evidence

of guilt is overwhelming.)

- 2 -

agrees with the Magistrate Judge that this claim is procedurally barred from

federal habeas corpus review because the Arizona Court of Appeals rejected the

claim on the basis of the “invited error” doctrine, which is an adequate and

independent state procedural rule2

, and because the petitioner has failed to

assert any legitimate cause for the procedural bar or to show that the failure to

consider his Fifth Amendment claim will result in a fundamental miscarriage of

justice.3

 

The gist of the petitioner’s second claim is that his Fourteenth Amendment

right to due process, which the Court construes as a Sixth Amendment claim of

ineffective assistance of counsel, was violated due to his counsel’s failure to

object to the petitioner’s appearance at trial in prison clothes and restraints. The

Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that this claim should be denied on its

merits because the petitioner has failed to establish that the state superior court’s

rejection of this claim was either contrary to, or an unreasonable application of,

clearly established federal law as set forth by the Supreme Court in Strickland v.

Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), or resulted in a decision that was based on an

Case 2:10-cv-00101-PGR Document 24 Filed 08/02/11 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the state court record. At the

very least, the petitioner has not established that he was prejudiced by any failure

by his counsel to object to his appearance in prison clothing and restraints given

the overwhelming evidence of his guilt. See Allen v. Woodward, 395 F.3d 979,

999 (9th Cir.2005) (Court concluded that even if the petitioner’s counsel’s

performance was arguably deficient, the petitioner could not establish the

prejudice required to satisfy Strickland’s prejudice prong due to the overwhelming

evidence of the petitioner’s guilt); Whitman v. Bartow, 434 F.3d 968, 972 (7th Cir.

2006) (“Because [the petitioner’s] appearance before the jury in his prison

clothing did not prejudice the outcome of his trial, [the petitioner’s] ineffective

assistance of counsel claim also fails. ... The evidence of [the petitioner’s] guilt

was overwhelming, and his attire was not an outcome determinative factor in the

jury’s decision.”) Therefore,

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

(Doc. 20) is accepted and adopted by the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s [Amended] Petition Under

28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody

(Doc. 10) is denied and that this action is dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no Certificate of Appealability shall issue

and that the petitioner is not authorized to appeal in forma pauperis because the

dismissal of the petitioner’s habeas petition is justified by a plain procedural bar

and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable, and because

the petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter

Case 2:10-cv-00101-PGR Document 24 Filed 08/02/11 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

judgment accordingly.

DATED this 2nd day of August, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-00101-PGR Document 24 Filed 08/02/11 Page 4 of 4