Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_06-cv-00486/USCOURTS-azd-4_06-cv-00486-0/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

Jeffrey William Bartsch,

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV-06-486-TUC-DCB (JCG)

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner Jeffrey William Bartsch, presently incarcerated at the Arizona State Prison

Complex, Santa Rita Unit, in Tucson, Arizona, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to the Rules of Practice of this Court, this matter was

referred to Magistrate Judge Guerin for Report and Recommendation. Before the Court are

the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) (Doc. No. 1) and Respondents’ Answer

to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Answer”). (Doc. No. 15.) The Magistrate Judge

recommends that the District Court dismiss the petition on the ground that it is time barred.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 1993, Petitioner pled guilty to one count of armed robbery committed while on

parole and with a prior felony conviction. (Answer, Ex. A.) Petitioner was sentenced to an

aggravated prison term of fifteen years, without eligibility for parole or early release. (Id.)

Petitioner filed notices of post-conviction relief on January 12, 1994 and January 25,

Case 4:06-cv-00486-DCB Document 19 Filed 10/23/07 Page 1 of 5
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

 Respondents’ brief does not include the fact that Petitioner filed two notices of postconviction relief in January, 1994. Thus what Respondents refer to as Petitioner’s “second 

PCR notice,” was actually his third, and what Respondents refer to as Petitioner’s “third PCR

notice” was actually his fourth. See Answer, Ex. A, pgs. 2 & 3 (summarizing procedural history

of Petitioner’s post-conviction relief proceedings).

2

 Copies of Petitioner’s petitions for review by the Arizona Court of Appeals and the

Arizona Supreme Court are not included in the record provided by Respondents.

2

1994 (“First and Second Rule 32 Petitions”).1 (Answer, Exs. B & C.) On May 31, 1994,

Petitioner, through counsel, filed a motion to dismiss his post-conviction proceedings.

(Answer, Ex. C.) The motion was granted on June 9, 1994. (Answer, Ex. C.) 

On February 12, 1997, Petitioner filed a third notice of post-conviction relief.

(Answer, Ex. D.) On May 29, 1997, Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief

pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. ( “Third Rule 32 Petition”) raising three claims: (1)

Petitioner’s plea was not voluntarily and intelligently made because his trial counsel gave

him erroneous advice as to the sentence he would be facing if he were convicted at trial, (2)

Petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel gave him

erroneous advice as to the sentence he would be facing if he were convicted at trial, and (3)

Petitioner’s sentence should not have been aggravated pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-702.

(Answer, Ex. E.) The trial court denied Petitioner’s Third Rule 32 Petition on September 29,

1997. (Answer, Ex. F.) 

On August 13, 2003, Petitioner filed a fourth notice of post-conviction relief.

(Answer, Ex. G.) On August 25, 2003, Petitioner filed a fourth petition for post-conviction

relief (“Fourth Rule 32 Petition”), which he later supplemented. (Answer, Exs. H & I.)

Petitioner’s Fourth Rule 32 Petition presented numerous claims which, on December 2, 2004,

the trial court found to be precluded, either because they had been raised in the previous

proceedings or because Petitioner had failed to raise them and had thereby waived them.

(Answer, Exs. A & J.) The trial court also concluded that Petitioner’s claims for ineffective

assistance of trial and post-conviction counsel were without merit. (Answer, Ex. J.)

Petitioner petitioned for review by the Arizona Court of Appeals of the trial court’s denial

of his Fourth Rule 32 Petition.2

 (Answer, Ex. A.) On June 30, 2005, the Court of Appeals

Case 4:06-cv-00486-DCB Document 19 Filed 10/23/07 Page 2 of 5
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

denied Petitioner’s request for relief. (Id.) Petitioner petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court

for review; the Supreme Court denied review on February 7, 2006. (Answer, Ex. K.) 

On September 19, 2006, Petitioner filed his present federal habeas petition in this

Court. (Doc. No. 1.) The Petition presents eight claims for relief: (1) Petitioner’s Fifth, Sixth

and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when he was improperly indicted on

charges of committing armed robbery with a gun, because no gun was discovered on his

person at the time of his arrest, (2) the trial court violated Petitioner’s due process and equal

protection rights in its application of certain aggravating factors, (3) the trial court erred, the

prosecutor engaged in misconduct and Petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel

because each erroneously asserted and held that Petitioner’s five charges of armed robbery

could be considered as priors, which would increase the sentence he would be facing if he

were convicted at trial, (4) the trial court improperly aggravated Petitioner’s sentence in

violation of state law and the rules of court, (5) Petitioner was improperly ordered to pay

restitution in violation of his Sixth and Eighth Amendment rights, (6) the prosecutor assigned

to Petitioner’s case engaged in prosecutorial misconduct by participating in a group designed

to utilize Arizona’s criminal justice system for financial gain, (7) Petitioner received

ineffective assistance of all trial and post-conviction counsel and (8) Petitioner has been

diagnosed with Hepatitis C, which should have been considered as a mitigating factor during

sentencing.

DISCUSSION

Federal petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed by state prisoners are governed by a

one-year statute of limitations period. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).

The statute of limitations begins to run from the latest of: (1) the date on which the

judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for

seeking such review; (2) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created

by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the

applicant was prevented from filing by such State action; (3) the date on which the

constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has

Case 4:06-cv-00486-DCB Document 19 Filed 10/23/07 Page 3 of 5
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

been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on

collateral review; or (4) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims

presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. 28 U.S.C. §

2244(d)(1). 

Petitioner's First and Second Rule 32 Petitions were dismissed on June 9, 1994,

however, the 1-year statute of limitations period did not begin to run until April 25, 1996 –

the day after AEDPA became effective. See Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th

Cir. 2001). From that date, Petitioner let 293 days elapse before initiating his 3rd Rule 32

proceedings on February 12, 1997. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) (stating that the statute of

limitations is tolled during the time that a properly filed application for state post-conviction

relief is pending). Accordingly, when Petitioner’s Third Rule 32 Petition was dismissed on

September 29, 1997, Petitioner had 72 days, or until December 10, 1997, to file his federal

habeas petition. See Biggs v. Duncan, 339 F.3d 1045, 1047 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that the

time between the conclusion of a first round of post-conviction relief proceedings and a

second round of post-conviction relief proceedings counts against 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)’s

1-year filing deadline). Nearly six years passed before Petitioner initiated his Fourth Rule

32 proceedings on August 13, 2003. Thus, Petitioner’s 1-year statute of limitations had run

long before he filed his federal Petition on September 19, 2006. The Petition was not timely

filed.

 Equitable tolling may be available even after the statute of limitations period has

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

a petition on time." Calderon v. United States Dist. Ct. (Beeler), 128 F.3d 1283, 1288 (9th

Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds, Calderon v. United States Dist. Ct., 163 F.3d 530

(9th Cir. 1998)(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.

Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1107 (9th Cir.1999) and Beeler, 128 F.3d at 1288). Petitioner has not

alleged any grounds for equitable tolling of the statute of limitations in this case.

Case 4:06-cv-00486-DCB Document 19 Filed 10/23/07 Page 4 of 5
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

Accordingly, the Petition is time-barred.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court enter

an order DISMISSING the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b), any party may serve and file written objections within

ten days of being served with a copy of the Report and Recommendation. If objections are

not timely filed, they may be deemed waived. The parties are advised that any objections

filed are to be identified with the following case number: CV-06-486-TUC-DCB.

The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of the Report and Recommendation to Petitioner

and counsel for Respondents.

DATED this 23rd day of October, 2007.

Case 4:06-cv-00486-DCB Document 19 Filed 10/23/07 Page 5 of 5