Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01221/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01221-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Chavel R. Navarro,

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora Schriro and Arizona Attorney

General,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 07-1221-PHX-SMM

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (the “Petition”). The matter was referred to a magistrate

judge for a Report and Recommendation. On October 25, 2007, the magistrate judge filed

a Report and Recommendation with this Court (Dkt. 12). On November 5, 2007, Petitioner

filed his Objection (Dkt. 13) to the Report and Recommendation. After considering the

Report and Recommendation and the arguments raised in Petitioner's Objections thereto, the

Court now issues the following ruling. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, this Court “must

make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made,”

and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations

made by the Magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d

Case 2:07-cv-01221-SMM Document 14 Filed 11/28/07 Page 1 of 2
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

 1The factual and procedural history of this case is set forth in the Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 12).

- 2 -

1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454

(9th Cir. 1983)). 

DISCUSSION1

 In their Answer, Respondents contend that the claims presented in Petitioner’s habeas

petition are unexhausted and procedurally defaulted. After conducting a thorough legal

analysis, the Magistrate Judge determined that Petitioner procedurally defaulted on two of

his three claims—ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct—by failing

to exhaust available state remedies. The Magistrate Judge also determined that the Arizona

Court of Appeals decision which led to Petitioner’s third claim—violation of his right to have

a jury determine each fact used to enhance his sentence—was not clearly contrary to federal

law. Having reviewed the legal conclusions of the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge, and the objections having been made by Petitioner thereto, the Court finds

that the Magistrate Judge adequately addressed all of Petitioner's arguments. Therefore, the

Court hereby incorporates and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation

of Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey (Dkt. 12).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

(Dkt. 1) is DENIED and this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

DATED this 27th day of November, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01221-SMM Document 14 Filed 11/28/07 Page 2 of 2