Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03285/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03285-1/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

 RODNEY D. MOORE

Petitioner, 

vs.

 DORA B. SCHRIRO, et al

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-3285-PHX-JAT (BPV) 

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

Pending before the Court is Petitioner's pro se Amended Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition”). Named as

Respondent in the Petition is Dora B. Schriro. The Attorney General of the State of

Arizona is named as an additional Respondent. Respondents filed an Answer

(“Answer”) to the Petition on February 16, 2006, with exhibits A through Z attached.

Pursuant to the Rules of Practice of this Court, this matter was referred to

Magistrate Judge Bernardo P. Velasco for a Report and Recommendation. 

The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, after its independent

review of the record, enter an order denying the Petition. 

...

...

...

...

Case 2:05-cv-03285-JAT Document 14 Filed 08/30/06 Page 1 of 8
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 All exhibit references are references to the exhibits attached

to the Government's Answer to the Petition unless otherwise

indicated. 

-2-

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Trial court proceedings

On September 18, 2000, a grand jury in the Superior Court of the State of

Arizona, Maricopa County, indicted Petitioner, Rodney Dureay Moore, on three

counts involving the sale of narcotic drugs, all Class 2 felonies. (Ex. B.)1

 

Petitioner entered a plea agreement with the State on January 30, 2001.

Petitioner agreed to plead guilty to the attempted sale of narcotic drugs with one prior

felony conviction, on Count 1, a Class 3, non-dangerous, repetitive offense, and the

sale of narcotic drugs on Count 2, a Class 2 , non-dangerous, non-repetitive offense.

The State agreed to dismiss Count 3 and the allegation of Petitioner's other prior

convictions. (Ex.C.) 

The plea was entered and accepted before the trial court on January 30, 2001.

(Ex. D.) On March 2, 2001, the trial court sentenced Petitioner to the aggravated

sentence of seven and a half years in the Department of Corrections (“DOC”) on

Count 1, with 163 days credit for presentence incarceration, along with a fine of

$3,540,restitution of $61, and community supervision of thirteen months to follow

completion of his sentence with DOC, but to be served concurrently with his sentence

on Count 2. The trial court sentenced Petitioner to three years of probation on Count

2, to begin running upon his release from DOC, along with a fine of $3,540 and 360

hours of community service. (Ex. E.) The trial court informed Petitioner at the time

of sentencing that he had twenty days with which to file for post-conviction relief.

(Ex. E, p. 10.) 

Case 2:05-cv-03285-JAT Document 14 Filed 08/30/06 Page 2 of 8
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-

First Petition for Post-Conviction Relief

Petitioner filed a notice of post-conviction relief in state court on June 6, 2001.

(Ex. F.) The trial court appointed counsel on June 27, 2001. (Ex. G.) Appointed

counsel filed a “Notice of Completion of Post-Conviction Review by Counsel;

Request for Extension of Time to Allow Defendant to File Pro Per Petition for PostConviction Relief” on January 15, 2002. (Ex. H.) The trial court granted an

extension of time to March 1, 2002, to allow petitioner to file a pro per petition for

post-conviction relief. (Ex. I.) 

Petitioner filed a “Pro Per Petition for Post-Conviction Relief” on February 1,

2002. The petition was based upon an “attached Memorandum,” however, no

memorandum was attached. (Ex. J.) The trial court entered a minute entry on

February 25, 2002, stating that the trial court was “unable to consider granting relief”

because there was no memo attached. (Ex. K.) 

Petitioner submitted a “Petitioner for Post Conviction Relief Pursuant to Rule

32.1(a)(b) & (c)” on March 4, 2002. (Ex. L.) The petitioner raised six claims for

relief:

(1) The court was without jurisdiction to render judgment or

impose sentence;

(2) The conviction violated the United States and Arizona

Constitutions due to the lack of the establishment of an

adequate factual basis for the plea;

(3) The court aggravated the sentence without first setting

forth aggravating circumstances;

(4) Counsel was ineffective where counsel fell below an

objective standard of reasonableness;

(5) The court erred in imposing an illegal sentence upon

defendant; and

Case 2:05-cv-03285-JAT Document 14 Filed 08/30/06 Page 3 of 8
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-

(6) The presentence report “showed prejudice.” 

(Ex. L.)

The trial court accepted the petition and allowed the State forty-five days to

respond. (Ex. M.) The court reviewed the file and, finding no response by the State,

on November 6, 2002, the trial court ordered the State to provide a copy of any

response to the court if they had filed a response; that if no response had been filed,

that they had until November 29, 2002 to file a response or file a notice stating that

it did not intend to file a response. (Ex. N.) 

On December 11, 2002, Petitioner filed a “Motion for

Clarification/Reconsideration on Order Allowing the State to File an Untimely

Response.” On January 10, 2003, the State simultaneously filed a “Response to

Petition for Post-Conviction Relief” and a “Motion to Allow Filing of Delayed

Response to Petition for Post-Conviction of Relief.” (Exs. P,Q.) 

On February 26, 2003, the trial court granted the States motion to allow the

delayed filing and denied Petitioner's petition for post-conviction relief for the

“reasons given by the State in its Response” to the petition, and dismissed the petition.

(Ex. R.) 

Petitioner does not contend that he sought review of his first petition for postconviction relief. (See Petition, p.2.) Respondents contend that he did not seek

review of the petition to the Arizona Court of Appeals, attaching a printout of the

docket sheet of Petitioner's state case in support of this uncontested assertion. (Ex.

S.) 

Second Petition for Post-Conviction Relief

Petitioner filed a second notice and petition of post-conviction relief on

December 1, 2004. (Ex. T.) On February 7, 2005, the trial court found the petition

untimely. (Ex. U.) The trial court further found that the exception to untimely filing,

Rule 32.1(g), did not apply to Petitioner's second petition because Blakely v.

Case 2:05-cv-03285-JAT Document 14 Filed 08/30/06 Page 4 of 8
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 -5-

Washington, 124 S.Ct. 2531, (2004), which formed the basis for Petitioner's second

petition for post-conviction relief, did not apply retroactively, and dismissed the

petition as untimely. (Ex. U.) 

Petition for Review

 Petitioner filed a “Petition for Review Rule 32– of Right Petition for PostConviction Relief” to the Arizona Court of Appeals on February 22, 2005. (Ex. V.)

The Petition for Review was denied without opinion on September 21, 2005. (Ex.

W.) 

Petitioner filed the present Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on October 19,

2005 (Document # 1), and the Amended Petition on November 10, 2005 (Document

# 4). Respondents filed an Answer on February 14, 2006. (Document # 11.) On

February 27, 2006, Petitioner submitted a "Response to States Reply to Petition for

Habeas Corpus" (Document # 12.) 

DISCUSSION

The writ of habeas corpus is available to “a person in custody pursuant to the

judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). The

District Courts’s standard of review is described as follows:

An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person

in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted

with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State

court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim—

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an

unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as

determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or 

(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable

determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in

the State court proceeding.

Case 2:05-cv-03285-JAT Document 14 Filed 08/30/06 Page 5 of 8
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 -6-

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

Timeliness

A one year period of limitation shall apply to an application for writ of habeas

corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(d)(1).

The running of this one-year statute of limitations on habeas petitions for state

convictions is tolled during any period when "a properly filed application for state

post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or

claim is pending" in any state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). Thus, the statute

of limitations is tolled during the pendency of a state court action for post-conviction

relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). 

Equitable tolling may be available even after the statute of limitations period

has expired if "extraordinary circumstances beyond a prisoner's control make it

impossible to file a petition on time." Calderon v. United States Dist. Ct. (Beeler),

128 F.3d 1283, 1288 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds Calderon v. United

States Dist. Ct., 163 F.3d 530 (9th Cir. 1998)(en banc). The Ninth Circuit has noted

that determinations of "whether there are grounds for equitable tolling are highly fact

dependent." Whalem/Hunt v. Early, 233 F.3d 1146, 1148 (9th Cir. 2000)(en banc).

Equitable tolling is appropriate only if extraordinary circumstances beyond a

prisoner's control make it impossible to file a petition on time, and is unavailable in

most cases. Miranda v. Castro 292 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Miles

v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1107 (9th Cir.1999) and Beeler, 128 F.3d at 1288). The

threshold necessary to trigger equitable tolling under the AEDPA is very high.

Miranda, 292 F.3d at 1066 (quoting United States v. Marcello, 212 F.3d 1005, 1010

(7th Cir. 2000)). 

Case 2:05-cv-03285-JAT Document 14 Filed 08/30/06 Page 6 of 8
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 Because petitioner's subsequent petition was not limited to an

elaboration of the facts related to the claims in the first

petition, the second petition for post conviction relief

constitutes a new round, and the gap between the denial of the

first petition and the new petition is not tolled. See King v.

Roe, 340 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 2003) (New petition construed as

part of the first full round if the petitioner is simply

attempting to correct deficiencies attendant to the first

petition.) 

-7-

Analysis

The Magistrate Judge finds that, pursuant to the AEDPA, the Petition filed in

this Court is untimely. Petitioner had until one year after his conviction became final

to file his federal petition. 

Petitioner's conviction became final on March 2, 2001, the day Petitioner was

sentenced by the trial court. See Ariz.R.Cri.P. 17.1(e); Isley v. Arizona Dept. of

Corrections, 383 F.3d 1054, 1055 (9th cir. 2004) (Conviction becomes final at

sentencing because entry of guilty plea waives right to appeal under Arizona law.)

The limitations period began running on March 3, 2001 and ran for 95 days until it

was tolled on June 6, 2001, when Petitioner filed his notice of post-conviction relief.

See Isley, 383 F.3d at 1056. 

The tolling period ended when the petition was denied on February 26, 2003,

and the limitations period began running on February 27, 2003.2

 The limitations

period ended on November 23, 2003. 

The second petition for post-conviction relief was filed on December 1, 2004,

after the limitations period had already lapsed. The filing of the second petition could

not restart the statute of limitations because it had already lapsed. Ferguson v.

Palmateer, 321 F.3d 820, 823 (9th Cir. 2003). Nor, having been rejected by the trial

court as untimely, would it have tolled the limitations period as a properly filed

petition. See Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 125 S.Ct. 1807 (2005) (Petition

Case 2:05-cv-03285-JAT Document 14 Filed 08/30/06 Page 7 of 8
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 -8-

rejected as untimely not “properly filed” and not entitled to statutory tolling under §

2244(d)(2)). 

Petitioner has not suggested any extraordinary circumstances that may be

responsible for his tardiness in filing his Petition. Although Petitioner's lack of legal

knowledge is evident from his reply in the instant case, the Ninth Circuit has recently

held that “a pro se petitioner's lack of legal sophistication is not, by itself, an

extraordinary circumstance warranting equitable.” Raspberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d

1150 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge finds that the Petition is time-barred. The

Magistrate Judge does not reach the respondent's alternate argument concerning

procedural default. 

RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District

Court, after its independent review of the record, enter an order DISMISSING the

Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 4).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(B), any party may serve and file written objections

within ten days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation.

If objections are not timely filed, they may be deemed waived. If objections are filed,

the parties should use the following case number: CV 05-3285-PHX-JAT.

DATED this 29th day of August, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-03285-JAT Document 14 Filed 08/30/06 Page 8 of 8