Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00565/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00565-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Richard Charles Tuccio,

Petitioner,

v.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Respondents.

______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV-12-565-TUC-DCB

ORDER

This matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and the local rules of practice of this

Court for a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on the Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. Before the Court is the

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, which recommends that the

Petition be denied and dismissed. The Petitioner filed Objections to the

Report and Recommendation and the Respondents filed a Response to the

Objections. 

PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS

Petitioner’s objections, as follows:

Petitioner claims that the Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge that petitioner failed to argue for the

first time that his attorney failed to conduct adequate

investigation to advise and assist him in making an informed

decision on the plea offer versus going to trial in his PCR

is not correct...Petitioner claims that claim 3 is not

procedurally defaulted in this case.

Case 4:12-cv-00565-DCB Document 25 Filed 05/19/14 Page 1 of 4
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

The Respondent did not testify at trial, consequently his version

of the factual basis is not part of the record before the Court. Cullen

v. Pinholster, 131 S.Ct. 1388, 1398 (2011).

2

(Objection at 6-7.) In addition, Petitioner claims that the Magistrate

Judge committed error in recommending that claims (1), (2) and (4) may

be dismissed on their merits.1 (Objection at 8.) His reasoning is that

in this case, his attorney was ineffective “because of his acts that were

inconsistent with his duties of loyalty to petitioner.” (Objection at

9.)

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When objection is made to the findings and recommendation of a

magistrate judge, the district court must conduct a de novo review.

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 

DISCUSSION 

Petitioner was convicted by a jury in Pima County Superior Court,

case #CR 2009-1004- 001, of Kidnapping-Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault,

and Burglary, and was sentenced to multiple terms of imprisonment, the

longest of which is 10.5-years. Petitioner raised four grounds for

relief: (1) Petitioner’s trial counsel was ineffective in violation of

the Sixth Amendment;(2) The trial court erred by precluding testimony

that was relevant and probative toward Petitioner’s defense, in violation

of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments; (3) Petitioner’s Sixth Amendment

rights were violated when trial counsel failed to inform him of a plea

deal and when the trial court abused its discretion by denying

Petitioner’s request for a hearing on the issue of ineffective assistance

of counsel; and (4) Petitioner’s appellate counsel was ineffective in

violation of the Sixth Amendment.

Case 4:12-cv-00565-DCB Document 25 Filed 05/19/14 Page 2 of 4
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

Respondents, in a thorough and detailed review of Petitioner’s

conviction, appeal and post-conviction litigation, argued procedural

default, claims not cognizable for federal habeas relief, as well as

dismissal on the merits. (Docs. 12-15) In addition, the Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendation is thorough and well-reasoned. (Doc.

19.) 

Petitioner’s Objections do not highlight any new or pertinent law

or facts that were left unconsidered, unresolved or improperly resolved

in the R&R. 

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

This Court has authority to issue a Certificate of Appealability

(COA), if the Petitioner has made a substantial showing that he was

denied a federal constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The COA

shall indicate which specific issue or issues where there is substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3).

"Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on

the merits, the showing required to satisfy § 2253(c) is straightforward:

The petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the

district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or

wrong." United States v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2000)

(citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).)

The issue is somewhat more complicated where the district court

dismisses the petition based on procedural grounds, without reaching the

merits of the underlying claim, then the COA issues if the prisoner

shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether

the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right

and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district

Case 4:12-cv-00565-DCB Document 25 Filed 05/19/14 Page 3 of 4
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

court was correct in its procedural ruling. Martin, 226 F.3d at 1046. The

first step is to decide whether the petition raises a debatable

constitutional question, then the question is whether the procedural

issue raised in the petition is highly debatable. Id.

Here, the Court ruled on both the merits and on procedural grounds.

The Court finds that the Petition failed to raise any constitutional

issues or procedural issues that would be highly debatable among jurists

of reason. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, after conducting a de novo review of the record,

IT IS ORDERED that the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation

(Doc. 19) in its entirety. The Objections raised by the Petitioner are

OVERRULED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

(Doc. 1) is DENIED and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. Final

Judgment to enter separately. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Certificate of Appealability is

DENIED.

DATED this 19th day of May, 2014.

Case 4:12-cv-00565-DCB Document 25 Filed 05/19/14 Page 4 of 4