Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02495/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02495-1/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

 As a result of a hit and run vehicular accident resulting in a pedestrian’s

death, the petitioner was charged with four felonies: second-degree murder, two

counts of aggravated DUI, and leaving the scene of an accident; various

aggravating circumstances were also alleged in his indictment, including in part

that he committed the offenses while released from confinement and that he had

six prior felony convictions. The petitioner was sentenced pursuant to a plea

agreement whereby he pleaded guilty to reckless manslaughter with two

historical prior felony convictions and accepted a stipulated sentence of 18 years

of incarceration.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Thomas White,

 Petitioner,

vs.

Sandra Walker, et al.,

 Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-2495-PHX-PGR (MEA)

 

 ORDER

 

Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

Judge Aspey in light of the petitioner’s Objection to R & R (Doc. 16), the Court

concludes that the petitioner’s objections should be overruled and that the

Magistrate Judge correctly determined that the petitioner’s petition for a writ of

habeas corpus, timely filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, should be dismissed.1

Case 2:10-cv-02495-PGR Document 17 Filed 04/19/11 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

2

 The Arizona Court of Appeals rejected the petitioner’s argument as to

the staleness of his prior convictions for sentencing enhancement purposes on

the ground that his 1990 conviction for criminal trespass, which the petitioner

argued was too old to be a historical prior under state law, was his fourth or fifth

felony conviction and the pertinent state law provided in part that a historical prior

felony conviction included any felony conviction (regardless of age) that was a

third or more prior felony conviction.

- 2 -

First, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the petitioner’s first

ground for habeas relief, i.e., that his right to due process was violated because

he was sentenced as a twice-convicted repetitive offender notwithstanding that

one of the two prior felony convictions used to enhance his sentence was too old

under state law to be used as a prior felony conviction for sentencing purposes,

is not a claim cognizable on a petition for federal habeas relief as it involves only

an alleged state court error regarding the interpretation or application of a state

law regarding the imposition of sentence.2

Second, the Court further agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the

petitioner’s second ground for habeas relief, i.e., that he was denied the right to

the effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to inform him that

one of the historical prior convictions used to enhance his sentence could not

properly have been classified as a prior felony under state law due to its age, is

meritless because the state court’s decision that the petitioner was not denied

effective assistance of counsel was not clearly contrary to or an unreasonable

application of federal law. As the Magistrate Judge properly concluded, the

petitioner has not established that had he known about the alleged prior

conviction issue he would have chosen to forgo the plea agreement and would

Case 2:10-cv-02495-PGR Document 17 Filed 04/19/11 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

3

 It appears from the petitioner’s petition that the relief he is seeking is

limited to being resentenced as a repetitive offender with just one historical prior

felony conviction. 

- 3 -

have gone to trial on the indictment and risked an even greater sentence.3

Therefore,

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

(Doc. 15) is accepted and adopted by the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody 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

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

right as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

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

judgment accordingly.

DATED this 19th day of April, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-02495-PGR Document 17 Filed 04/19/11 Page 3 of 3