Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00148/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00148-2/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jeffrey James Faulkner, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro et. al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 05-0148-PHX-SMM

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (the “Petition”). The matter was referred to Magistrate

Judge Jay R. Irwin for a Report and Recommendation. On April 16, 2007, the Magistrate

Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court (Doc. 15). On June 15, 2007,

Petitioner filed his Objection (Doc. 55) to the Report and Recommendation which was

accompanied by a Declaration (Doc. 56). After considering Judge Irwin’s Report and

Recommendation and the arguments raised in Petitioner's Objections thereto, the Court now

issues the following ruling. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, this Court “must

make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made,”

and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations

made by the Magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d

Case 2:05-cv-00148-SMM Document 57 Filed 10/09/07 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 -

1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454

(9th Cir. 1983)). 

DISCUSSION

The detailed procedural history of this case is set forth in Respondents’ Answer to the

Petition (Doc. 39) and the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 49).

Petitioner filed his original Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on

January 12, 2005 ( Doc. 1). That petition was ordered served, but on May 9, 2005, Petitioner

sought leave to amend his petition. (Doc. 10). The motion was granted (Order 10/20/05, Doc.

17), and Petitioner’s first Amended Petition (Doc. 18) was filed the same date. Thereafter, on

March 2, 2006, Petitioner filed his second motion to amend (Doc. 24), which was granted on

March 29, 2006, resulting in the filing of the present, Second Amended Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus (Doc. 26). Petitioner’s Second Amended Petition asserts the following four

grounds for relief:

1. Petitioner was denied due process of law when the trial court denied his motion to

dismiss based upon the absence of evidence to support accomplice liability on Count II of the

Indictment. (Second Amended Petition, #26 at 5-5B).

2. Petitioner’s due process and double jeopardy rights were violated when his sentences

were made consecutive to his sentences in the 1995 cases despite the provisions of his plea

agreements to the contrary. (Id. at 6-6A.). 

3. Petitioner’s due process rights were violated by the imposition of consecutivesentences

in violation of state law. (Id. at 7).

4. Petitioner’s due process rights were violated by the aggravation of his sentence by

factors not determined by the jury, in violation of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000),

and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). (Id. at 8).

On July 24, 2006, Respondents filed their Answer (Doc. 39), and Exhibits thereto on July

25, 2006 (Doc. 40). Respondents argue that Ground One is procedurally defaulted (Doc. 39, at

9-16). They argue that Ground Two (Concurrent Sentencing Agreement) is without merit

Case 2:05-cv-00148-SMM Document 57 Filed 10/09/07 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

 1 The Report and Recommendation included a recommendation that Ground One

of Petitioner’s Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED

with Prejudice and that the remainder of the Second Amended Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus be DENIED.

- 3 -

because on re-sentencing, Petitioner received the relief he is requesting (Id. at 16). They argue

that Ground Three (Consecutive Sentences) is without merit, because Count I and Count II of

the charges reflected separate conduct (Id. at 16-24). Finally, they argue that Ground Four

(Blakely) is without merit because Blakely is not retroactively applicable on habeas review and

that Petitioner has never asserted that the statutory maximum sentence was exceeded (Apprendi)

(Id. at 23-25). On February 16, 2006, Respondents supplemented the record (Doc. 8) to provide

a complete copy of their Exhibit K. Petitioner filed a Reply on August 30, 2006 (Doc. 46). 

Having reviewed the legal conclusions of the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge, and the objections having been made by Petitioner thereto, the Court finds

that the Magistrate Judge adequately addressed all of Petitioner's arguments. Therefore, the

Court hereby incorporates and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation

of Magistrate Judge Jay R. Irwin (Doc. 49).1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

(Doc. 1) is DENIED and this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion Requesting Change of Judge

(Doc. 52) is DENIED.

DATED this 9th day of October, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-00148-SMM Document 57 Filed 10/09/07 Page 3 of 3