Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-02389/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-02389-0/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

Jericho Lee Jones, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 03-2389-PHX-SRB(CRP)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Pending before the Court is a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Petitioner Jericho Lee Jones. (Docket #1). Petitioner is being held

at the Arizona Department of Corrections based on convictions in Maricopa County Superior

Court for sexual abuse and attempted child molestation. 

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

Judge Charles R. Pyle for a report and recommendation. The Magistrate Judge recommends

the District Judge, after independent review of the record, enter an order dismissing the

Petition.

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

Case 2:03-cv-02389-SRB Document 22 Filed 06/09/06 Page 1 of 7
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

This Court issued an order on August 29, 2005, requiring Respondents supply a

complete record of the proceedings from Maricopa County Superior Court. (Docket 20).

Respondents complied with the order. (Docket 21.) However, the record was not supplied

in bound, numbered form and as such this Court will refer to the evidence in a descriptive

manner so as to better illuminate what evidence is being referred to.

2

Docket 16, hereinafter "Objection"

3

Respondents in their Answer state that the Petition was filed on March 22, 2002. The

date stamp on the Petition supplied in the Trial Court Record is March 25, 2002. 

- 2 -

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Petitioner plead guilty on January 30, 2001, to one count of attempted child

molestation a dangerous crime against children in the second degree and one count of sexual

abuse a dangerous crime against children in the first degree. (Trial Court Record1

, Change

of Plea Minute Entry dated January 30, 2001). On May 18, 2001, the trial court sentenced

Petitioner to an aggravated term of ten (10) years for attempted child molestation and to a

lifetime term of probation for sexual abuse. (Trial Record, Sentencing Minute Entry dated

May 18, 2001; Objection to Report and Recommendation2

, Exhibit 3). 

Petitioner filed a timely Notice of Post-Conviction Relief with the trial court on June

4, 2001. (Trial Record, Notice of Post Conviction Relief). Petitioner's Petition for PostConviction Relief was filed March 25, 20023

. (Trial Record, Petition for Post Conviction

Relief). The trial court dismissed the Petition on October 9, 2002. (Trial Record, Minute

Entry dated October 9, 2002, filed October 18, 2002, the Court will use the filing date for

calculations of time). The trial court dismissed some of the claims as specifically precluded

and dismissed the remaining claims for failure to raise an issue of fact or law. (Id.).

Petitioner then had thirty days within which to file a Petition for Review of the trial court's

decision with the Arizona Court of Appeals. Ariz.R.Crim.P. 32.9(c). 

Petitioner filed his Petition for Review on December 6, 2002. (Trial Record, Petition

for Review). The Court of Appeals dismissed the Petition for Review as untimely. (Trial

Record, Court of Appeals Order dated December 18, 2002). Petitioner argues that he filed

Case 2:03-cv-02389-SRB Document 22 Filed 06/09/06 Page 2 of 7
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

Docket 12, hereinafter "Opposition."

5

The Court identifies the Grounds as they appear in the Petition, thus Ground VIIII

as opposed to IX.

- 3 -

a motion for extension of time which was lost and never ruled on. (Opposition to

Respondents [sic] Request to Dismiss Petitioners [sic] Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus4

,

p.3, Exhibit A).

Petitioner filed the pending Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on December 3, 2003.

In it Petitioner raises 28 grounds. The Court in its January 20, 2004, order dismissed

Grounds I through III, V through VIII, XIII, and XXVII of the Petition. (Docket 3). Pending

before this Court are Grounds IV, VIIII5

, X through XII, XIIII through XXVI, and XXVIII.

On August 23, 2004, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in this case.

(Docket 15). Petitioner filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on September

13, 2004. (Docket 16). The District Judge sustained the objection and referred the Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus back to the Magistrate Judge for further consideration and

additional report and recommendation. (Docket 19).

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

Court'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.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

Case 2:03-cv-02389-SRB Document 22 Filed 06/09/06 Page 3 of 7
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 -

Timeliness

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA") of 1996 created a one

year statute of limitations for prisoners in state custody to file a federal petition for writ of

habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). This one year statute of limitations runs from the

later of two dates: "the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct

review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review." 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(1)(A). The

statute of limitations is tolled during the time in which a properly filed application for state

post-conviction or other collateral review is pending. 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(2). An application

is properly filed "when its delivery and acceptance are in compliance with applicable laws

and rules governing filings." Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 9, 121 S.Ct. 361, 364 (2000).

Respondents contend that Petitioner's habeas petition is untimely and should be

dismissed. (Answer, p.2-4). Petitioner argues that his Petition is timely because he filed a

motion for extension of time. (Opposition, p.3, Exhibit A). However, that motion was never

granted. It appears that the motion for extension of time was sent to the Arizona Court of

Appeals as opposed to the trial court as required by Rule 32.9(c) of the Arizona Rules of

Criminal Procedure. The motion is date stamped by the Court of Appeals on November 18,

2002. (Trial Record, Motion for Extension of Time to Filed Petition of Review). The motion

is date stamped for Maricopa County Superior Court on December 10, 2002. (Id.) Finally,

the motion itself indicates that the original and copies were mailed on November 18, 2002

to Gerald D. Clark, Clerk of the Court, Court of Appeals Division One, and Gerald R. Grant,

Deputy County Attorney. (Id. at 2). It does not indicate that a copy of the motion was sent

to Maricopa County Superior Court as required. Ariz.R.Crim.P. 32.9(c).

Petitioner had thirty days from the date his Petition for post-conviction relief was

denied to file a Petition for Review with the Arizona Court of Appeals. Ariz.R.Crim.P.

32.9(c). This means Petitioner's Petition for Review should have been filed on November

18, 2002. However, Petitioner's Petition was not filed until December 2, 2002. (Trial Record,

Petition for Review). It appears that because of Petitioner's filing error, the motion for

extension of time was never ruled on. As such, Petitioner had not been granted the additional

Case 2:03-cv-02389-SRB Document 22 Filed 06/09/06 Page 4 of 7
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 -

time in which to file his petition for review and the Court of Appeals denied his motion as

untimely.

In it's decision, the Arizona Court of Appeals stated

Whether petitioner was without fault for the untimely filing is a

question of fact. The trial court may, "after being presented

with proper evidence, allow a late filing" if it finds petitioner

was not responsible for the untimely filing.

(Court of Appeals State of Arizona Division One, Order dated December 18, 2002, quoting

State v. Pope, 130 Ariz. 253, 255, 635 P.2d 846, 848(1981)). Thus, the appropriate place to

raise his claim that he filed a motion for extension of time which was never ruled on was

with the trial court. 

Absent an extension of time for filing his petition for review, tolling of the statute of

limitations ended when Petitioner's conviction became final, November 18, 2002, the date

on which the time for seeking review expired. This means that Petitioner's Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus needed to be filed by November 18, 2003 in order to be timely. However,

the Petition was not filed until December 3, 2003. The Petition is thus untimely and must be

dismissed unless equitable tolling applies.

Equitable Tolling

Equitable tolling is available under the AEDPA. However, such tolling is permitted

"only if extraordinary circumstances beyond a prisoner's control make it impossible to file

a petition on time." Calderon v. United States District Court (Beeler), 128 F.3d 1283, 1288

(9th Cir.1997), quoted and rev'd on other grounds in Calderon v. United States District Court

(Kelly), 163 F.3d 530, 541 (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. Prutney, 187

F.3d 1104, 1107 (9th Cir.1999) and Beeler, 128 F.3d at 1288. The threshold necessary to

Case 2:03-cv-02389-SRB Document 22 Filed 06/09/06 Page 5 of 7
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 -

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).

Petitioner has not demonstrated that extraordinary circumstances beyond his control

prevented him from timely filing his habeas petition. Petitioner failed to properly file his

Petition for Review with the Arizona Court of Appeals, sending his motion for extension of

time to the appellate court as opposed to the trial court. See Ariz.R.Crim.P. 32.9(c). After

his Petition for Review was dismissed as untimely, Petitioner could have filed a motion with

the trial court seeking leave to file a late petition and the appellate court informed him of

such. (Court of Appeals State of Arizona Division One, Order dated December 18, 2002,

quoting State v. Pope, 130 Ariz. 253, 255, 635 P.2d 846, 848(1981)). Petitioner did not seek

leave from the trial court to allow the late filing nor did he follow up on why his initial

motion for extension of time was not granted. Had his motion been granted the present

habeas petition would have been timely. 

These circumstances do not constitute the type of circumstances necessary to

surmount the high threshold required for equitable tolling. They did not make it impossible

for Petitioner to submit a timely Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. See Miranda, 292 F.3d

at 1066, quoting Miles v. Prutney, 187 F.3d 1104, 1107 (9th Cir.1999). As such, the pending

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus must be dismissed.

CONCLUSION

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

after independent review of the record, deny Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

(Docket 1).

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 filed, the parties should use the following case number: CV 03-2389-PHX-SRB.

. . . . . . . .

Case 2:03-cv-02389-SRB Document 22 Filed 06/09/06 Page 6 of 7
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

- 7 -

If objections are not timely filed, then the parties' right to de novo review by the

District Court may be waived. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th

Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 900 (2003).

DATED this 9th day of June, 2006.

Case 2:03-cv-02389-SRB Document 22 Filed 06/09/06 Page 7 of 7