Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00381/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00381-1/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

 WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Angel Lopez Valenzuela,

 Petitioner,

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

 Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-14-00381-PHX-PGR (BSB)

 ORDER

 

 

Having considered de novo the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

Judge Bade in light of petitioner’s Lopez-Valenzuela Objection to Magistrate Judge

Report and Recommendation (Doc. 15), the Court finds that the petitioner’s

objections should be overruled as meritless because the Court concludes that the

Magistrate Judge correctly determined that the petitioner’s habeas corpus petition,

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, should be denied.

The Magistrate Judge concluded the petitioner had procedurally defaulted on

his Ground One and portions of his Grounds Two, Three and Four, and that he had

failed to establish any basis to overcome the procedural bars. In his Objection, the

petitioner argues his procedural defaults are excused by his actual innocence. The

Court, in the exercise of its discretion, has reviewed all of the petitioner’s claims on

 

Case 2:14-cv-00381-PGR Document 16 Filed 07/14/15 Page 1 of 5
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

1

The Court in any case agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the

petitioner has not shown any cause or prejudice for any of his procedural defaults,

and that the petitioner has not shown that the failure to consider the merits of his

claims would result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice because he has not met

the high standard of Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995).

2

The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the petitioner’s

conclusory complaints in Ground Two about other allegedly improper stipulations

entered into by his counsel are insufficient for habeas relief. 

- 2 -

their merits notwithstanding the procedural default issues and concludes that all of

the claims are plainly meritless.1 See Reed v. Ross, 468 U.S. 1, 9 (1984) (“Our

decisions have uniformly acknowledged that federal courts are empowered by 28

U.S.C. § 2254 to look beyond a state procedural forfeiture and entertain a state

prisoner’s contention that his constitutional rights have been violated.”)

In Ground One, the petitioner argues that his Fourth Amendment rights were

violated because a police detective fabricated the facts that established the probable

cause for his arrest for the sale or transportation of dangerous drugs. The Court

agrees with the Magistrate Judge that this claim is not cognizable on federal habeas

review inasmuch as the petitioner has not established that the state court impeded

him from developing his Fourth Amendment claim. See Moorman v. Schriro, 426

F.3d 1044, 1053 (9th Cir.2005)(“If a state has provided a state prisoner an

opportunity for full and fair litigation of his Fourth Amendment claim, [a federal court]

cannot grant federal habeas relief on the Fourth Amendment issue.”)

In Ground Two, the petitioner argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for

stipulating to the admission of an English transcript of parts of a recording of a

Spanish language conversation involving the petitioner, an undercover detective,

and a co-conspirator involved in the drug deal.2

 The Court also agrees with the

Case 2:14-cv-00381-PGR Document 16 Filed 07/14/15 Page 2 of 5
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

- 3 -

Magistrate Judge that this claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is meritless and

that the state court’s rejection of this claim was not based on an unreasonable

determination of the facts, nor was it contrary to, or an unreasonable application of,

Supreme Court precedent. The record establishes that the defense counsel’s

strategic decision to consent to the admission of the transcripts, a decision that the

petitioner specifically concurred in on the record during the trial, was not objectively

unreasonable because counsel stated on the record that he was stipulating to the

partial transcripts to keep the jury from hearing the entire taped conversation.

Furthermore, the petitioner cannot show any legally sufficient prejudice stemming

from the admission of the transcripts given the other trial testimony in the record

about the recorded conversation.

In Ground Three, the petitioner argues that his trial counsel was ineffective

because he did not permit the petitioner to review the evidence and to listen to the

taped conversations underlying the prosecution’s case. The Court also agrees with

the Magistrate Judge that this ineffective assistance claim is meritless because the

petitioner has not established any legally sufficient prejudice inasmuch as he has not

established how his defense would have been aided by him having reviewed the

taped conversations or how there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of his

trial would have been different had he reviewed the evidence. As noted by the

Magistrate Judge, the petitioner testified at trial in his own defense and denied

knowingly participating in the drug deal. The Court concludes that the petitioner has

not shown that the state court’s rejection of this ineffective assistance claim was

based on an unreasonable determination of the facts, nor that it was contrary to, or

an unreasonable application of, Supreme Court precedent.

In Ground Four, the petitioner argues in part that his trial counsel was

Case 2:14-cv-00381-PGR Document 16 Filed 07/14/15 Page 3 of 5
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

3

Other aspects of Ground Four are reiterations of claims raised in the

other grounds that the Court has already rejected.

- 4 -

ineffective for failing to investigate and subpoena defense witnesses, e.g. the

petitioner’s co-conspirator, and for failing to obtain security camera tapes of the

scene of the drug deal.3

 The Court further agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the

petitioner has not established any ineffective assistance of counsel stemming from

any deficiencies in his counsel’s investigation because the petitioner’s prejudicerelated argument that the outcome of the trial probably would have been different

had this evidence, the nature of which the petitioner does not specify, been

introduced is predicated solely on speculation. Given the petitioner’s conclusory

allegations, the Court concludes that the state court’s resolution of this aspect of the

petitioner’s ineffective assistance claim has not been shown to have been based on

an unreasonable determination of the facts, nor has it been shown to have been

contrary to, or based on an unreasonable application of, Supreme Court precedent.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation

(Doc. 14) is accepted and adopted by the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. §

2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody is denied and that

this action is dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability shall not issue

and that the petitioner is not entitled to appeal in forma pauperis because the

petitioner has not demonstrated that reasonable jurists would find the Court’s

determination that he has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right to be debatable or wrong.

Case 2:14-cv-00381-PGR Document 16 Filed 07/14/15 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment

 accordingly.

DATED this 14th day of July, 2015.

Case 2:14-cv-00381-PGR Document 16 Filed 07/14/15 Page 5 of 5