Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01701/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01701-1/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

WO HJ

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John P. Windfeldt, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-1701-PHX-EHC (ECV)

ORDER

Before the Court is a second Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 61) from

Magistrate Judge Voss, which recommends denial of Petitioner’s Amended Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Court previously adopted Magistrate Judge Voss’ first

Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 39), but granted Petitioner leave to file an amended

petition because he had failed to allege ineffective assistance of counsel (“IAC”) in his

first. Petitioner filed an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. 54) alleging

that (1) his lawyer provided IAC when he failed to explain to Petitioner during plea

negotiations that a second degree murder conviction can be based on a mens rea of

extreme recklessness; and (2) that his lawyer failed to object to the inclusion of extreme

recklessness in the jury instruction for second degree murder where the indictment

alleged intentional or knowing conduct only. Respondents filed an Answer to Petitioner’s

Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Dkt. 58). The second Report and

Case 2:06-cv-01701-EHC Document 68 Filed 06/19/08 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

Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 57 (1985).

2

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

- 2 -

Recommendation recommends that Petitioner’s Amended Petition be denied. Petitioner

filed and Objection (styled “Reply to ECV’s Report and Recommendation & Request for

Evidentiary Hearing & Request for Appealability to 9th Circuit”) (Dkts. 62, 63). 

Petitioner also filed a “Motion to Clarify Difference in Plea v. Risk of Trial Right

Denied” (Dkt. 66).

The Court reviews de novo the portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation to which Petitioner has filed an objection. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)(“a

judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report, ...,

to which objection is made.”); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir. 2003). The district court is not required to review any issue that is not the

subject of an objection. Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219 (D. Ariz. 2003),

citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). The Court has reviewed de novo the

entire record in this matter. 

Petitioner’s primary argument is that during plea negotiations, his lawyer failed to

advise him that he could be convicted of second degree murder based on reckless

conduct. As a result, Petitioner contends that he rejected an offer to plead guilty to

negligent homicide, instead choosing to go to trial. Had he known that he could be

convicted of second degree murder at trial based on reckless conduct, Petitioner claims

that he would have accepted the plea agreement. The Supreme Court, in Hill v.

Lockhart,

1

 applied the right of effective assistance of counsel under Strickland v.

Washington,

2

 to the plea process. Thus, Petitioner had a right to make an informed

decision on whether to plead guilty or go to trial. See Nunes v. Mueller, 350 F.3d 1045,

1052 (9th Cir. 2003). The Report and Recommendation concludes that even if

Case 2:06-cv-01701-EHC Document 68 Filed 06/19/08 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

The Report and Recommendation does not resolve the first prong of the Strickland

test; whether Petitioner’s attorney rendered deficient performance. There is, however, some

evidence in the record supporting Petitioner’s claim that he was not properly advised by his

attorney that he could be convicted of second degree murder based on reckless conduct.

Petitioner’s own attorney essentially admits to deficient performance in an affidavit. Because

the Arizona Supreme Court refused to consider the attorney’s affidavit, there may be an

exhaustion issue raised. Respondents may, if they wish, provide further briefing on the

exhaustion issue.

4

When a colorable claim of IAC is presented, a district court should hold an

evidentiary hearing. See e.g. Larry Gene Martin v. Mel Thomas, CV 98-02151-EHC, Dkt.

59 (Mandate of the Ninth Circuit reversing and remanding for an evidentiary hearing).

- 3 -

Petitioner’s attorney rendered deficient performance, no prejudice resulted.3 The Court

does not agree that such a conclusion can be drawn from the current record. Because

Petitioner has presented a colorable claim as to both prongs of Strickland, an evidentiary

hearing is necessary to give Petitioner an opportunity to (1) prove that his trial counsel

erroneously advised him; and (2) to show a “reasonable probability” that he would have

accepted the plea offer if properly advised. See Nunes, 350 F.3d at 1054.4

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED granting Petitioner’s “Reply to ECV’s Report and

Recommendation & Request for Evidentiary Hearing & Request for Appealability to 9th

Circuit” (Dkts. 62, 63) to the limited extent that it requests an evidentiary hearing.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting an Evidentiary Hearing for Thursday,

August 14, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. with Petitioner to be personally present. Petitioner shall

file with the Court a list of evidence and witnesses, if any, that will be introduced at the

hearing no later than July 31, 2008.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Petitioner’s “Motion to Clarify

Difference in Plea v. Risk of Trial Right Denied” (Dkt. 66) to the extent that Petitioner’s

clarifications will become part of the record in this matter.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED deferring a ruling on the Report and

Recommendation (Dkt. 61) until after the Evidentiary Hearing.

Case 2:06-cv-01701-EHC Document 68 Filed 06/19/08 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 -

DATED this 19th day of June, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-01701-EHC Document 68 Filed 06/19/08 Page 4 of 4