Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02518/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02518-1/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NOT FOR PUBLICATION 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 

Jeffrey Dale Woods, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, 

Respondent.

No. CV-13-2518-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

 At issue is Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle’s Report and Recommendation 

(Doc. 28)(hereinafter the “R&R”), regarding Jeffrey Dale Woods’s Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1). Petitioner in pro se filed Objections (Doc. 31) to the R&R and 

Respondent Charles L. Ryan filed no Response to the Objections. After considering all 

of the above filings, the Court will grant the Petition with regard to Ground One and 

reduce Petitioner’s sentence from 23.25 years to 23.1 years, and deny the remainder of 

the Petition. 

 The Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Boyle’s analysis of the issues in the 

R&R is thorough and uniformly correct. Because the R&R exhaustively treated with the 

facts and procedural history of the underlying criminal matter and the Petition, the Court 

will not recount them here. Judge Boyle concluded that regarding Grounds Two, Three 

and Five, involving his claims of the state trial court’s inappropriate “duplicative” use of 

prior convictions, its failure to provide Petitioner with an opportunity to withdraw from 

his plea, and his PCR counsel’s ineffectiveness, Petitioner did not exhaust these claims in 

Case 2:13-cv-02518-JJT Document 32 Filed 07/28/15 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

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 

state court and that they cannot now be raised in a state forum because they are 

procedurally barred; moreover, Judge Boyle correctly found that procedural default 

cannot be overcome on any of those claims because Petitioner cannot show cause for or 

prejudice resulting from any of them. The R&R also concluded that while Petitioner did 

effectively exhaust in state court Ground Four, dealing with his claim that trial counsel 

was ineffective for allowing misuse of prior convictions at sentencing, and so it was 

properly before this Court on habeas review, Ground Four nonetheless failed on the 

merits. In his Objections, Petitioner did not take issue with any of the R&R’s 

recommendations respecting Grounds Two through Five, and they will be dismissed. 

 Petitioner does, however, object to Judge Boyle’s recommendations with respect 

to Ground One—the claim that the state trial court imposed an impermissibly long 

sentence.1

 The R&R recognized that at the time of Petitioner’s sentencing, the maximum 

allowable sentence for his kidnap charge was 23.1 years, as provided by the Arizona 

Legislature’s amendment to A.R.S. § 13-703(I) effective January 1, 2009. But the trial 

court sentenced him to 23.25 years—the maximum under the version of Section 13-

703(I) that had been in effect until January 1, 2009. Judge Boyle recommended this 

Court correct the sentence to reflect the correct applicable maximum sentence at the time 

of sentencing—23.1 years. 

 Petitioner objects to this recommendation, arguing that it does not go far enough. 

He urges that because his plea agreement referenced a superseded version of Section 13-

703(I), this Court should not apply the then-correct version of that statute, or any other 

version of Section 13-703. According to Petitioner, A.R.S. § 13-702 is the only valid 

statute cited by his plea agreement and it limits his sentence to 12.5 years. Petitioner’s 

argument, although not entirely clear, appears to be that this Court should ignore the 

version of Section 703(I) applicable as of December 1, 2009—the day he was 

sentenced—because it was not enacted at the time he committed his offenses of 

 

1

 Judge Boyle correctly found that Ground One, like Grounds Two, Three and 

Five, was unexhausted but procedurally defaulted. But Respondents agreed to waive the exhaustion requirement, allowing this Court to address Ground One on the merits. 

Case 2:13-cv-02518-JJT Document 32 Filed 07/28/15 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

conviction. This argument misapplies the Ex post Facto clause. Upon enactment, the 

2009 amendments to Section 13-703(I) operated to decrease Petitioner’s exposure to 

incarceration and therefore are not subject to ex post facto. Petitioner’s argument that the 

legal mistake in his plea agreement allowing for an over length sentence constituted a 

breach of the agreement by the State of Arizona is also incorrect. The remedy for an over 

length sentence is to reduce that sentence to bring it into line with legal limits, and that 

shortened sentence is less than what Petitioner knew to be permissible under the plea 

agreement when he made the agreement. 

IT IS ORDERED accepting, adopting and incorporating by reference Magistrate 

Judge Boyle’s Report and Recommendation and the analysis contained therein (Doc. 

28). 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting the Petition for a Writ of Habeas 

Corpus (Doc. 1) on Ground One only, for the reasons set forth above and in more detail 

in the incorporated Report and Recommendation, and reducing Petitioner’s sentence to 

23.1 years on the kidnap conviction, with all other aspects of the sentence to remain 

unchanged. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the remainder of the Petition for 

the reasons set forth above and in more detail in the incorporated Report and 

Recommendation. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying a Certificate of Appealability because 

Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 

 Dated this 27th day of July, 2015. 

 

 Honorable John J. Tuchi 

 United States District Judge 

Case 2:13-cv-02518-JJT Document 32 Filed 07/28/15 Page 3 of 3