Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00620/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00620-1/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

1

The Report and Recommendation and Respondent’s Answer incorrectly spelled

Petitioner’s first name as “Aaron.” The record shall reflect that the correct spelling is Arron.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Arron Shawn Bossardet, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-620-TUC-FRZ

 ORDER

Before the Court for consideration is the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Petitioner Arron Shawn Bossardet,1

 through the representation

of counsel, and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, recommending the

dismissal of the Petition.

Petitioner was convicted by jury in state court of first degree murder, aggravated

assault with a deadly weapon, and three counts of kidnapping, and sentenced by the state trial

court to concurrent and consecutive terms of imprisonment totaling natural life plus 10.5

years. 

This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Glenda E. Edmonds, pursuant to the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), Rule 72, Fed.R.Civ.P., and Local Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of

the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, for

further proceedings and report and recommendation.

Case 4:10-cv-00620-FRZ Document 34 Filed 07/09/13 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Magistrate Judge Edmonds issued her Report and Recommendation, recommending

that the Court, after its independent review of the record, enter an order denying the Petition

for Writ of Habeas on the merits of the five grounds presented, based on the findings (1) that

trial counsel was not ineffective on the 11 issues presented; (2) newly discovered evidence

of post traumatic stress disorder does not constitute a cognizable claim; (3) the trial court’s

failure to instruct the jury on the “mere presence” defense sua sponte was not error; (4) the

prosecutor’s alleged improper vouching did not violate due process; and (5) Petitioner’s

natural life sentence does not violate the Eighth Amendment.

The Report and Recommendation sets forth a thorough factual and procedural history

of Petitioner’s state court proceedings and the convictions at issue, with proper citation to the

state court record, and further provides a thorough analysis under the applicable legal

standards of the issues presented in this extensively briefed and documented record.

 Petitioner filed his Objection to Magistrate Report and Recommendation, pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636 and Rule 72(b)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P., objecting to the legal conclusions set forth

in the Report and Recommendation. 

After consideration of the matters presented and an independent review of the record

herein, including Petitioner’s objection, the Court finds hat the Report and Recommendation

shall be adopted, thereby denying the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on the merits, and

dismissing this action in accordance with the recommendations and findings set forth therein.

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Edmond’s Report and Recommendation (Doc.

30) is hereby ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED as the findings of fact and conclusions of law

by this Court;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is hereby

DENIED; judgment shall be entered accordingly;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for

habeas relief, any request for certificate of appealability shall be denied based on the Court’s

determination of the claims presented on the merits and that Petitioner has failed to make the

Case 4:10-cv-00620-FRZ Document 34 Filed 07/09/13 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

requisite substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right on the grounds presented.

See 28. U.S.C. § 2253(c). 

DATED this 9th day of July, 2013.

Case 4:10-cv-00620-FRZ Document 34 Filed 07/09/13 Page 3 of 3