Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00328/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00328-1/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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

Anthony Leon McClain, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV07-0328-PHX-SRB

ORDER

Petitioner, Anthony Leon McClain, filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on

February 12, 2007, presenting three claims for relief: 1) that he did not knowingly,

voluntarily and intelligently waive his right to have a jury determine the aggravated factors

to justify an aggravated sentence; 2) that he was denied effective assistance of counsel

because trial counsel failed to confer with him regarding the facts of his case, admitted to the

court that he had two prior felony convictions, failed to adequately advise him of the possible

range of sentences and failed to advise him of the consequences of his disclosures at the

sentencing hearing; and 3) that he was denied his right to a jury trial on aggravating factors

used at sentencing. 

Respondents filed their answer to the petition on June 20, 2007 and Petitioner filed

a response to the answer on July 20, 2007. On December 13, 2007, the Magistrate Judge

issued her Report and Recommendation in which she found that Petitioner failed to present

his first and second grounds for relief to the state court in his Rule 32 Post-Conviction Relief

Case 2:07-cv-00328-SRB Document 17 Filed 01/15/08 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

27

28

1

The record reflects that Petitioner was appointed counsel on his Petition for PostConviction Relief but counsel could not find colorable claims to raise. The trial court then

provided Petitioner with additional time to file pro per supplemental petition, which he did.

- 2 -

proceedings and could not raise them for the first time in federal court. Petitioner conceded

in his response to the answer that he had failed to exhaust his first and second grounds in

state court but argued that such failure should be excused because he does not have access

to a law library. He also requested postponement of consideration of his petition and that the

state court appoint counsel and afford him a hearing to develop the record 1

As to ground three, the Magistrate Judge concluded that it had been properly

exhausted but was without merit. 

Petitioner filed a timely objection to the Report and Recommendation arguing that to

deny his petition would result in a manifest injustice and a grave miscarriage of justice with

respect to the finding of procedural default with respect to grounds one and two. With respect

to ground three, Petitioner argues extensively that he should not have been sentenced under

the statutory scheme for historic prior felony convictions. But as pointed out in Respondents’

response to the objections to the Report and Recommendation, Petitioner was not sentenced

under the statutes establishing sentencing ranges for individuals sentenced with historical

prior felony convictions. As noted in the plea agreement, Petitioner was sentenced as a firsttime dangerous offender under A.R.S. §13-604, for which the sentencing range for his five

class three felonies was a minium sentence of 7 years, a maximum sentence of 21 years and

a presumptive sentence of 10.5 years. Petitioner’s prior felony convictions were utilized by

the trial court to justify the aggravated sentences imposed of 18 years for the two counts in

CR2002-018421 and 19 years for the three counts in CR2002-018046. 

The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that nothing in the Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus and the response to the Respondents’ answer established cause and prejudice

to excuse the default and permit this Court to review grounds one and two not previously

Case 2:07-cv-00328-SRB Document 17 Filed 01/15/08 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

27

28

- 3 -

presented to the state court. The objections provide no additional basis establishing legal

cause and prejudice to excuse the default.

The Court also agrees with the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge

that, while fully exhausted, ground three is without merit and the trial court’s application of

Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) was clearly reasonable. Although the United

States Supreme Court in Blakely found that factors that increase the penalty for a crime

beyond a prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to the jury and proved beyond

a reasonable doubt, excepted from this general rule was the fact of a prior felony conviction.

Petitioner’s two prior felony convictions were submitted to the trial court and admitted in

evidence as reflected in the transcript of the sentencing hearing (Exhibit G to Respondents’

answer). In that transcript, on page 5 beginning at line 18, the prosecutor reminds the judge

that defendant’s certified priors as well as certain photographs had been moved and were

admitted into evidence. They were also admitted by Petitioner in his plea agreement and by

defense counsel at sentencing. Moreover, in his ruling on the Rule 32 Supplemental Petition

raising the Blakely issue, the trial judge confirmed that his finding that the defendant had two

prior felony convictions supported the aggravated sentences (Exhibit R to Respondents’

answer). There was no Blakely Sixth Amendment violation in the court’s consideration and

imposition of an aggravated sentence based on these two prior felony convictions. The

objections of Petitioner to the Report and Recommendation with respect to ground three are

also overruled.

The Court having made a de novo review of the record in this case and having

considered the written objections filed by Petitioner as well as Respondents’ response to

those objections, the Court finds itself in agreement with the Report and Recommendation

of the Magistrate Judge in this matter.

IT IS ORDERED overruling Petitioner’s objections to Report and Recommendation

of the Magistrate Judge.

IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge

as the order of this Court.

Case 2:07-cv-00328-SRB Document 17 Filed 01/15/08 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

27

28

- 4 -

IT IS FURTHER that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied.

DATED this 14th day of January, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-00328-SRB Document 17 Filed 01/15/08 Page 4 of 4