Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01877/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01877-1/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

Erick Rivera, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora Schriro et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-1877-PHX-MHM (MEA)

ORDER

Petitioner has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

challenging his criminal conviction on a jury's guilty verdict on one count of misconduct

involving weapons entered in Maricopa County Superior Court, State of Arizona. (Doc. 1).

Petitioner was sentenced to a term of ten years of imprisonment as a result of this conviction.

The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey who has issued a Report and

Recommendation that recommends that the Petition should be denied and dismissed with

prejudice. (Doc.12). 

Petitioner has filed a motion for extension of time to file reply to Respondents'

response and to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 14). The next day, Petitioner filed

an objection to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 13). Petitioner's motion for extension

of time (Doc. 14) is granted. 

//

//

Case 2:05-cv-01877-MHM Document 15 Filed 09/27/06 Page 1 of 6
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 -

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The district court must review the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations

de novo if objection is made but not otherwise. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc). Pursuant to 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 or specified proposed

findings or recommendations to which objection is made". 

DISCUSSION

The Court has considered the pleadings and documents of record in this case, including

Petitioner's objection to the Report and Recommendation. 

At the trial on the weapons offense, the prosecution's evidence indicated that on

October 1, 2000, Petitioner and his brother Kenneth were apprehended by a Maricopa County

law enforcement officer on state trust land next to a vehicle that contained weapons in the

trunk. The officer testified at trial that, prior to exiting his vehicle, he had seen a firearm on

Petitioner's person and that he believed that Petitioner had placed the weapon in the trunk of

the car prior to the time the officer approached the two men on foot. Petitioner's conviction

on the weapons offense resulted in a finding that he had violated a term of his probation

imposed for his 1996 conviction for trafficking in stolen property. Petitioner's probation was

revoked and he was sentenced to the presumptive term of 3.5 years of imprisonment, with

credit for time served in presentence incarceration. The sentence imposed on the weapons

offense and the sentence imposed on the probation revocation were ordered to run

consecutively.

Petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal with respect to both cases and the cases were

consolidated by the Arizona Court of Appeals. Petitioner's conviction on the weapons offense

and his revocation were affirmed. Petitioner did not seek review in the Arizona Supreme

Court. 

On April 8, 2001, Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction review in the Superior

Court of Maricopa County, State of Arizona, with regard to both cases. Petitioner raised in

Case 2:05-cv-01877-MHM Document 15 Filed 09/27/06 Page 2 of 6
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 -

this petition a claim that trial counsel had provided ineffective assistance because counsel had

failed to interview Petitioner's girlfriend or call her as a defense witness at trial. Petitioner

contended that his girlfriend would have established his actual innocence to the weapons

offense. Petitioner submitted the affidavit of his girlfriend who stated that she was with

Petitioner and his brother on the day of the alleged crime and that she "never saw either Erick

or Kenneth in possession of a gun at the park." Petitioner's brother had testified at the

criminal trial that he and family members were on a picnic when the police officer approached

them. Petitioner's brother had testified that Petitioner did not know the weapons were in the

car, that the weapons did not belong to Petitioner, and that Petitioner had not had control over

nor handled the guns. 

The Superior Court held an evidentiary hearing on Petitioner's claims for postconviction relief on November 14, 2003. Petitioner testified that he had discussed calling his

girlfriend as a witness with defense counsel. Defense counsel allegedly had told Petitioner

that because Petitioner at that time was facing charges for kidnapping the girlfriend, he

thought it would be "like a double-edge sword" and "not really good." Petitioner's girlfriend

testified at the hearing that she did not see Petitioner with a weapon that day, that Petitioner's

brother had a weapon but she did not know where it was located, and that Petitioner had a

black cell phone on his hip inside his pants. The girlfriend denied discussing the case with

Petitioner's attorney.

Petitioner's attorney testified at the hearing that he had spoken with Petitioner's

girlfriend prior to trial but it is unclear whether the pending weapons charge was discussed.

Counsel stated that he did not want to put her on the stand as the kidnapping case was not

being prosecuted because the State could not locate the victim, i.e., the girlfriend. Counsel

further stated that he discussed with Petitioner the strong evidence against him on the

kidnapping charge and that Petitioner faced less chance of conviction and a lesser sentence

on the weapons charge. In addition, counsel stated that the girlfriend's testimony would

simply repeat the brother's testimony. On April 15, 2004, the Superior Court denied the postCase 2:05-cv-01877-MHM Document 15 Filed 09/27/06 Page 3 of 6
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 -

conviction petition, finding that counsel had not been ineffective because counsel had made

a strategic and tactical decision not to call the girlfriend in light of the more serious

kidnapping charges that Petitioner faced. The Superior Court further found that Petitioner had

not shown resulting prejudice from the claimed omission. 

Petitioner was allowed an extension of time, up to June 10, 2004, to seek

reconsideration of the Superior Court's ruling or to file a pro per petition for review in the

Arizona Court of Appeals. Petitioner signed his petition for review on June 8, 2004 and the

petition was filed by the Court of Appeals on June 16, 2004. The Arizona Court of Appeals

dismissed the petition as not timely on June 22, 2004. The Court of Appeals stated in its

Order that whether the Petitioner had been without fault for the untimely filing was a question

of fact. The Court of Appeals further stated that the trial court may, "after being presented

with proper evidence, allow a late filing" if it finds that petitioner was not responsible for the

untimely filing." Rather than seeking permission for a late filing in the Superior Court,

Petitioner sought reconsideration in the Arizona Court of Appeals. Petitioner stated in his

request for reconsideration that he had filed his petition for review on June 8, 2004. The

Court of Appeals denied the motion without prejudice and again indicated to Petitioner to file

a motion in the trial court seeking permission to file a late petition for review due to

circumstances beyond his control. Petitioner did not file a motion for permission to file a late

petition for review in the Superior Court.

Petitioner filed his federal habeas petition on June 22, 2005. Petitioner has raised as

his ground of constitutional error that trial counsel was ineffective for not calling his girlfriend

as a defense witness. Petitioner claims that he is actually innocent of the weapons charge and

that testimony from his girlfriend establishes his actual innocence.

The Court agrees with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that Petitioner

procedurally defaulted his federal habeas claim in the state courts. The Arizona Court of

Appeals did not address the merits of the claim because Petitioner failed to follow a state

procedural rule. Petitioner's recourse was to seek leave to file an untimely petition for review

Case 2:05-cv-01877-MHM Document 15 Filed 09/27/06 Page 4 of 6
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 -

in the state Superior Court but he failed to pursue this remedy. As the Magistrate Judge has

discussed, Petitioner's claim to the effect that state prison authorities delayed his filing

arguably has shown cause for the failure to timely file his petition in the Arizona Court of

Appeals seeking review of the Superior Court's ruling denying relief following the evidentiary

hearing. However, Petitioner has not shown cause for failing to file a motion in the Superior

Court for permission to seek untimely review as the Arizona Court of Appeals had indicated

was the proper course of action. 

The Court further agrees with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that

Petitioner has not shown cause, resulting prejudice or that he is actually innocent. Petitioner's

counsel made a strategic and tactical decision not to call Petitioner's girlfriend as a defense

witness at trial. Moreover, her proposed testimony was consistent with that of Petitioner's

brother, that is, that she did not see Petitioner with a weapon. As pointed out by the

Magistrate Judge, her affidavit and her testimony at the evidentiary hearing were not entirely

consistent. Petitioner's girlfriend stated in her affidavit that Petitioner and his brother did not

have a gun at the park and that Petitioner had a cell phone on his hip. At the evidentiary

hearing, she testified that Kenneth had a gun and that Petitioner had a cell phone inside his

pants but she could not say if the phone was sticking out. Petitioner has not demonstrated a

claim of actual innocence based on reliable evidence that was not presented at trial. See

Casey v. Moore, 386 F.3d 896, 921 n.27 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 125 S.Ct. 2975 (2005).

The Court has considered Petitioner's objection to the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation. Petitioner states that counsel did not speak with his girlfriend prior to trial

and that the decision not to call her as a defense witness affected the outcome of the trial.

Petitioner reiterates his contention that he made efforts to file his petition for review of the

Superior Court's ruling in the Arizona Court of Appeals on June 8th but he essentially was

thwarted in his efforts at the prison. 

Petitioner's counsel testified at the evidentiary hearing that he interviewed Petitioner's

girlfriend prior to trial. As discussed above, the girlfriend's testimony would have repeated

Case 2:05-cv-01877-MHM Document 15 Filed 09/27/06 Page 5 of 6
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 -

the testimony of Petitioner's brother. Petitioner has not shown cause for not filing a request

for permission for untimely filing in the Arizona Superior Court. Petitioner's objection is

overruled. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for extension of time (Doc. 14) is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's objection (Doc. 13) is overruled.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 12) in its entirety as the Order of the Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1)

is denied and dismissed with prejudice. 

DATED this 20th day of September, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-01877-MHM Document 15 Filed 09/27/06 Page 6 of 6