Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01735/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01735-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Derrick Stevenson, 

Petitioner,

v. 

Dora Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. ______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-01735 PHX-ROS 

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge Glenda E. Edmonds’ Report and

Recommendation. (Doc. 27). Judge Edmonds recommends the Petition for a Writ of Habeas

Corpus be denied. For the reasons discussed below, the Report and Recommendation will

be adopted. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254, R. 11, the Court must “issue or deny a

certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” A certificate

of appealability will be denied because the applicant has not made a substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional right as required by 28 U.S.C.A § 2253(c)(2). 

BACKGROUND

On March 19, 2002, Petitioner was convicted after a jury trial of premeditated firstdegree murder. The trial court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment without the

possibility of parole. On September 10, 2007, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus. (Doc. 1). Petitioner claims he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing and to relief

because: (1) the pretrial identification procedures were unduly suggestive, (2) the jury

instruction on premeditated murder was incorrect, and (3) counsel at trial and on appeal were

ineffective. 

Case 2:07-cv-01735-ROS-GEE Document 30 Filed 07/22/10 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

2

STANDARD

A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Where any party has

filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendations, the district

court’s review of the part objected to is to be de novo. Id.; see also United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,

1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo review of

factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, but not otherwise.”) (internal

quotations and citations omitted).

DISCUSSION

I. Pretrial Identification Procedures

Two witnesses to the shooting, Francisco Maya and Kimberly Ward, both identified

Petitioner as the shooter in a photo lineup. Petitioner argues the pretrial photo identification

was unduly suggestive because Petitioner was the only individual wearing a red shirt, is the

only individual with a jeri curl hairstyle that is short on top and long in the back, the

background to his photo had a “unique color,” and the witnesses were unreliable. Judge

Edmonds rejected these arguments, noting that the six photos all basically resembled one

another, the individuals were all light-skinned black males, and the witnesses were

sufficiently reliable. 

Petitioner objects that Judge Edmonds gave undue deference to the Arizona Court of

Appeals ruling, because it based its decision on an examination of a different photo. This

argument fails. Judge Edmonds expressly noted that even if it is true the Arizona Court of

Appeals examined the wrong photo lineup, her analysis would not change because the photo

actually viewed by the witnesses and used at trial was not unduly suggestive. This Court

agrees that after considering the totality of the circumstances, the photo lineup was not

unduly suggestive. Judge Edmonds’ recommendation that the pretrial identification

procedures did not violate Petitioner’s due process rights will be adopted.

Case 2:07-cv-01735-ROS-GEE Document 30 Filed 07/22/10 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

II. Jury Instruction on Premeditated Murder

Petitioner argues the jury was given an improper instruction on the meaning of

“premeditation” for first-degree murder, because it included this statement: “Proof of actual

reflection is not required, but an act is not done with premeditation if it is the instant effect

of a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.” According to Petitioner, the Arizona Supreme Court

has held that proof of actual reflection is required for first-degree premeditated murder. By

giving an instruction to the contrary, Petitioner argues the State’s burden of proof was

reduced.

Judge Edmonds concluded the instruction was erroneous, but it was harmless error.

Petitioner objects that the instruction was not harmless error, or alternatively, should not have

been subjected to harmless error review because it was a structural error. Judge Edmonds

correctly found that the improper jury instruction did not constitute a structural error and is

subject to harmless error review. See Hedgpeth v. Pulido, 129 S.Ct. 530, 531 (2008);

Middleton v. McNeil, 541 U.S. 433, 437 (2004). Judge Edmonds also correctly found that

the erroneous instruction was harmless error. Judge Edmonds’ recommendation that

Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief because of an erroneous jury instruction will be

adopted.

III. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel 

Petitioner argues his trial counsel was ineffective in: (1) handling admitted hearsay

evidence of victim’s statements, (2) handling identification issues, and (3) failing to object

to six instances of prosecutorial misconduct. Petitioner argues his appellate counsel was

ineffective in: (1) failing to present the correct photo lineup, and (2) failing to argue

cumulative error from five instances of prosecutorial misconduct.

A. Handling of Hearsay

The trial court admitted testimony from Sweeney, a friend of the victim, regarding

statements the victim made over the phone on the day he was killed. The trial court found

that the victim’s statements such as “Derrick has a gun” or “Dizzy is here now” were

Case 2:07-cv-01735-ROS-GEE Document 30 Filed 07/22/10 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

admissible because they were made just as the event was happening, and thus fell under the

present sense impression exception. Judge Edmonds found the trial counsel was not

ineffective on the hearsay issue, noting that the hearsay was properly admitted under the

present sense impression exception. 

Petitioner objects that evidence of the victim’s statements made over the phone to a

friend just before the shooting should not have been admitted because it violated his right to

confront his accusers. The confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment bars “admission

of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable

to testify, and the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.” Crawford v.

Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 53-54 (2004). Petitioner argues he did not have an opportunity to

confront and cross-examine the victim. Petitioner did not present this ground in his habeas

petition. In any case, this argument fails because the admitted statements by the victim were

not testimonial. See id. Judge Edmonds’ recommendation that counsel was not ineffective

in handling the hearsay evidence will be adopted.

B. Other Allegations of Ineffective Assistance

Judge Edmonds found Petitioner’s other claims of ineffective assistance of counsel

all fail. Petitioner presents no objections. Judge Edmonds’ recommendation that habeas

relief be denied on these claims will be adopted.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 27) is ADOPTED and the

Petition (Doc. 1) is DENIED.

FURTHER ORDERED a certificate of appealability IS DENIED.

DATED this 21st day of July, 2010.

Case 2:07-cv-01735-ROS-GEE Document 30 Filed 07/22/10 Page 4 of 4