Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-04102/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-04102-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

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

Darlene Laws, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dennis Harkins; Attorney General of t he

State of Arizona, 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-4102-PHX-EHC

ORDER

On December 14, 2005, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, alleging

ten claims. [Dkt. 1]. On February 8, 2006, Respondents filed an Answer. [Dkt. 8]. On March

2, 2006, Petitioner filed a Reply to the Answer. [Dkt. 10].

On June 22, 2006, Magistrate Judge Lawrence O. Anderson issued a Report and

Recommendation [dkt. 12], recommending that the Petition be denied. Magistrate Judge

Anderson recommends that Claim Ten be denied on t he merits and Claims One through

Nine be denied as procedurally defaulted. On July 6, 2006, Petitioner filed an Objection to

t he Rep ort and Recommendation. [Dkt. 13]. The district court "shall make a de novo

determination... of any portion of the Magistrate Judge's disposition to which specific

written objection has been made." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

Claim Ten alleges a violation of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531

(2004). [Dkt. 1, p. 14]. Magistrate Judge Anderson recommends denying Claim Ten on the

Case 2:05-cv-04102-EHC Document 14 Filed 07/25/06 Page 1 of 3
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 -

merit s because Blakely does not retroactively apply to this case. Petitioner objects to this

recommendation on the ground that Blakely "holds the court accountable to their [sic] own

rules." [Dkt. 13, p. 8]. The Ninth Circuit has found that Blakely does not apply retroactively.

Schardt v. Payne, 414 F.3d 1025, 1036 (9th Cir. 2005) ("New procedural rules generally do

not apply retroactively, unless they amount to watershed rules of criminal procedure...

Blakely did not announce a watershed rule of criminal p rocedure."). Claim Ten will be

denied on the merits. 

Petitioner objects to the finding that Claims One through Nine are procedurally

defaulted on the ground that she filed a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief pursuant to

Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1 in the Arizona Court of Ap p eals. "Before seeking a federal writ of

habeas corpus... the prisoner must fairly present his [or her] claim in each appropriate state

court." Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29, 124 S. Ct. 1347, 1349 (2004). Claims that have not

been fairly presented are procedurally defaulted if they are time-barred under state law.

Beaty v. Stewart, 303 F.3d 975, 987 (9th Cir. 2002) ("If [p et it ioner] has any unexhausted

claims, he has procedurally defaulted them, because he is now time-barred under Arizona

law from going back to state court."). Petitioner presented only Claim Ten- not Claims One

through Nine- to the Arizona Court of Appeals. [Dkt. 8, ex. S (alleging only a Blakely

violation)]. Claims One through Nine are time-barred under Arizona law; t he trial court

denied Petitioner's claim for post-conviction relief on November 9, 2004. [Dkt. 8, ex. Q]. See

Ariz R. Crim. P. 32.9(c) ("Within thirty days after the final decision of t he trial court on the

petition for post-conviction relief... any party aggrieved may p etition the appropriate

appellate court for review of the actions of the t rial court."). Claims One through Nine are

procedurally defaulted and will be denied.

//

//

//

//

Case 2:05-cv-04102-EHC Document 14 Filed 07/25/06 Page 2 of 3
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 -

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [dkt. 12] is ADO PTED; the

Petition for Habeas Corpus [dkt. 1] is DENIED. 

DATED this 24th day of July, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-04102-EHC Document 14 Filed 07/25/06 Page 3 of 3