Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00649/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00649-0/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

1

 At the same sentencing hearing, the court sentenced Petitioner to prison terms in two

other cases. The court imposed 2.5 years in one case and 1 year in the other. The court

ordered those prison terms to run concurrently with each other and with the terms imposed

for the marijuana and endangerment offenses. Doc. #9, Exh. E. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kevin Ware, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Laurie Leider, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-0649-PHX-MHM (ECV)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE MARY H. MURGUIA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

BACKGROUND

Petitioner Kevin Ware has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. #1). On January 14, 2002, Petitioner pleaded guilty in Maricopa

County Superior Court to one count of possession of marijuana for sale and one count of

endangerment. Doc. #9, Exh. B. On February 11, 2002, the court sentenced Petitioner to

concurrent prison terms of 4.5 years for the possession of marijuana for sale offense and 1.5

years for the endangerment offense.1

 Id. at Exh. C. On April 21, 2003, Petitioner, through

appointed counsel, filed a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief in which he claimed that the

Case 2:05-cv-00649-MHM Document 10 Filed 03/09/06 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 -

factual basis for his guilty plea was insufficient. Id. at Exh. E. On September 11, 2003, the

trial court dismissed the petition. Id. at Exh. F. Petitioner then filed a Petition for Review

in the Arizona Court of Appeals which was denied on November 24, 2004. Id. at Exh. G,

H. Petitioner did not seek review in the Arizona Supreme Court. Doc. #1 at 2. 

On February 28, 2005, Petitioner filed his habeas petition in this court. He alleges in

his only ground for relief that the factual basis to support his guilty plea to possession of

marijuana for sale was insufficient, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment. Respondents filed an Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. #9)

on July 21, 2005. Petitioner has not filed a traverse or a reply.

DISCUSSION

Respondents contend in their answer that Petitioner has procedurally defaulted on his

claim by failing to exhaust his state court remedies. They first argue that Petitioner's failure

to seek review of his state post-conviction petition in the Arizona Supreme Court constitutes

a failure to exhaust state court remedies. Alternatively, Respondents argue that Petitioner

failed to present his claim in the state court as a federal constitutional claim. They further

argue that because Petitioner has not demonstrated cause and prejudice, or a fundamental

miscarriage of justice, the claim is barred from federal review. 

A state prisoner must exhaust his remedies in state court before petitioning for a writ

of habeas corpus in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1) & (c); Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S.

364, 365-66 (1995); McQueary v. Blodgett, 924 F.2d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 1991). To properly

exhaust state remedies, a petitioner must fairly present his claims to the state's highest court

in a procedurally appropriate manner. O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 848 (1999). In

Arizona, a petitioner must fairly present his claims to the Arizona Court of Appeals by

properly pursuing them through the state’s direct appeal process or through appropriate postconviction relief. Swoopes v. Sublett, 196 F.3d 1008, 1010 (9th Cir. 1999); Roettgen v.

Copeland, 33 F.3d 36, 38 (9th Cir. 1994). 

Moreover, a claim has been fairly presented if the petitioner has described both the

operative facts and the federal legal theory on which the claim is based. Bland v. Cal. Dep't

Case 2:05-cv-00649-MHM Document 10 Filed 03/09/06 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 -

of Corrections, 20 F.3d 1469, 1472-73 (9th Cir.1994), overruled on other grounds by Schell

v. Witek, 218 F.3d 1017, 1025 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); Tamalini v. Stewart, 249 F.3d 895,

898-99 (9th Cir. 2001). "Our rule is that a state prisoner has not 'fairly presented' (and thus

exhausted) his federal claims in state court unless he specifically indicated to that court that

those claims were based on federal law." Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668 (9th Cir.

2000), amended on other grounds, 247 F.3d 904 (9th Cir. 2001). "If a petitioner fails to alert

the state court to the fact that he is raising a federal constitutional claim, his federal claim is

unexhausted regardless of its similarity to the issues raised in state court." Johnson v. Zenon,

88 F.3d 828, 830 (9th Cir. 1996).

If a petition contains claims that were never fairly presented in state court, the federal

court must determine whether state remedies remain available to the petitioner. See Rose v.

Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 519-20 (1982); Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 268-270 (1989)

(O'Connor, J., concurring). If remedies are still available in state court, the federal court may

dismiss the petition without prejudice pending the exhaustion of state remedies. Id.

However, if the court finds that the petitioner would have no state remedy were he to return

to the state court, then his claims are considered procedurally defaulted. Teague v. Lane, 489

U.S. 288, 298-99 (1989); see also Sandgathe v. Maass, 314 F.3d 371, 376 (9th Cir. 2002) (a

defendant's claim is procedurally defaulted when it is clear that the state court would hold

the claim procedurally barred). The federal court is barred from considering these claims

unless the petitioner can demonstrate that a miscarriage of justice would result, or establish

cause for his noncompliance and actual prejudice. See Dretke v. Haley, 124 S.Ct. 1847,

1851-52 (2004); Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 321 (1995); Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S.

722, 750-51 (1991); Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 495-96 (1986).

A. Failure to File Petition for Review in Arizona Supreme Court

Respondents contend that Petitioner was required to seek review of the denial of his

petition for post-conviction relief in the Arizona Supreme Court. Respondents argue at

Case 2:05-cv-00649-MHM Document 10 Filed 03/09/06 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 -

length that Swoopes, supra, was wrongly decided by the Ninth Circuit. They further contend

that Swoopes was overruled by Baldwin v. Reese, 124 S. Ct. 1347 (2004). They claim that

under Baldwin, a prisoner has not exhausted state court remedies until he presents his claims

to a state supreme court, even if review in that court is discretionary, as it is in Arizona.

This court has repeatedly rejected Respondents' arguments regarding the viability of

Swoopes and will do so again. First, with respect to Respondents' argument that the Ninth

Circuit's reasoning and conclusion in Swoopes were flawed, this court has no authority to

overturn or find invalid a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision. Second, the Ninth Circuit

apparently does not agree with Respondents' contention that Baldwin overruled Swoopes.

In a case decided after Baldwin, the Ninth Circuit restated the rule established in Swoopes

that "'claims of Arizona state prisoners are exhausted for purposes of federal habeas once the

Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled on them.'" Castillo v. McFadden, 399 F.3d 993, 998 n.3

(9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Swoopes). That same case cited Baldwin for a different proposition,

thus demonstrating that the Court was familiar with Baldwin. For these reasons, the court

finds Respondents' first argument to be without merit.

B. Failure to Raise as Federal Claim

Alternatively, Respondents contend that Petitioner failed to exhaust his state court

remedies by failing to fairly present his federal claim in state court. A review of Petitioner's

state petition for post conviction relief and the subsequent petition for review establishes that

Petitioner did not raise a federal due process claim in his state court petitions. Petitioner

raised one claim in his state petition: that the factual basis relied on by the court to support

Petitioner's guilty plea was insufficient. Doc. #9, Exh. E at 3. To support his argument,

Petitioner referred to state court cases establishing the requirement to obtain a sufficient

factual basis for each element of the offense to which a defendant is pleading and identifying

the elements of possession of marijuana for sale. Id. However, nowhere in the petition does

Petitioner assert a violation of any federal constitutional rights. Despite the similarity of the

claim urged in the state petition and the habeas petition, Petitioner was required to alert the

state court to the fact that he wanted to raise a federal constitutional claim. By failing to do

Case 2:05-cv-00649-MHM Document 10 Filed 03/09/06 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

2

 The time has passed to seek post-conviction relief in state court under Rule 32.4(a)

of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure and Petitioner has not shown that any of the

exceptions to the time limits under Rule 32.1(d), (e), (f), (g) or (h) apply to him.

- 5 -

so, Petitioner failed to provide the state court with a full opportunity to address the federal

constitutional claim. See Coleman, 501 U.S. at 731 ("This exhaustion requirement is also

grounded in principles of comity; in a federal system, the States should have the first

opportunity to address and correct alleged violations of state prisoner's federal rights.").

Because Petitioner failed to "fairly present" his federal claim to the state court, he has

not exhausted his state court remedies. Moreover, Petitioner would no longer have a remedy

if he returned to the state court.2

 As a result, his claims are procedurally defaulted. Petitioner

has offered nothing to show cause and prejudice for his failure to seek review of his federal

claim in state court, nor has he argued or otherwise demonstrated a miscarriage of justice.

Accordingly, the court will recommend that the petition be denied.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00649-MHM Document 10 Filed 03/09/06 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 -

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED:

That the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. #1)

be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment. The

parties shall have ten days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within

which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R.

Civ. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72. Thereafter, the parties have ten days within which to file a

response to the objections. Failure to timely file objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report

and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by

the district court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to timely file objections to any factual determinations of the

Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the

findings of fact in an order of judgement entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's

recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

DATED this 9th day of March, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-00649-MHM Document 10 Filed 03/09/06 Page 6 of 6