Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00310/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00310-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Harold Lee Becker, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-310-PHX-ROS

ORDER

On February 15, 2008, Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan filed a Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied

(Doc. 24). For the reasons below, the R&R will be adopted.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was convicted of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, first-degree

murder, and first-degree burglary. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the conspiracy

and murder convictions and 20 years imprisonment for the burglary conviction. The R&R

sets forth the background of this case and neither party objected to that background. Thus,

the Court adopts the background as an accurate recital

Petitioner alleges three grounds for relief in his Petition: (1) ineffective assistance of

counsel for failure to present alibi witnesses; (2) improper judicial and prosecutorial

vouching; and (3) insufficient evidence to support the conviction. The Magistrate Judge

Case 2:07-cv-00310-ROS Document 28 Filed 07/24/08 Page 1 of 3
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 -

recommended that the Petition be dismissed on all grounds. Petitioner timely filed an

objection stating that he “will stand on his original response to the state’s answer.”

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A “district judge may refer dispositive pretrial motions, and petitions for writ of

habeas corpus, to a magistrate, who shall conduct appropriate proceedings and recommend

dispositions.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 141 (1985); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B);

Estate of Connors v. O'Connor, 6 F.3d 656, 658 (9th Cir. 1993). Any party “may serve and

file written objections” to the R&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “A judge of the court shall make

a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified findings or

recommendations to which objection is made.” Id. A district judge “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).

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, a federal court

“shall not” grant habeas relief with respect to “any claim that was adjudicated on the merits

in State court proceedings” unless the State court decision (1) “was contrary to, or involved

an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the

Supreme Court of the United States,” or (2) “was based on an unreasonable determination

of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. §

2254(d); see also Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412–413 (2000). A state court’s decision

is “contrary to” clearly established precedent if it (1) “arrives at a conclusion opposite to that

reached by [the Supreme Court] on a question of law,” or (2) “decides a case differently than

[the Supreme Court] has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts.” Williams, 529 U.S.

at 413. A state court’s decision involves an “unreasonable application” of federal law if it

(1) “correctly identifies the governing rule but then applies it to a new set of facts in a way

that is objectively unreasonable,” or (2) “extends or fails to extend a clearly established legal

principle to a new context in a way that is objectively unreasonable.” Hernandez v. Small,

282 F.3d 1132, 1142 (9th Cir. 2002).

ANALYSIS

Case 2:07-cv-00310-ROS Document 28 Filed 07/24/08 Page 2 of 3
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 -

After a de novo review of the record, the Court will adopt the Magistrate Judge’s

recommendations. The state court reasonably concluded that counsel’s representation did

not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness in failing to present the alibi

witnesses. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687–88 (1984). In addition, the

prosecutor and judge did not improperly vouch for evidence. In any event, Becker has failed

to show that the allegedly improper statements had a substantial and injurious effect on the

verdict. See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 623 (1993). Finally, viewing the evidence

in a light most favorable to the State, a rational jury could have found Petitioner guilty

beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).

The Court, however, recognizes that this is a close case, so, if Petitioner decides to

appeal this decision, it will certify the appeal.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 24) is ADOPTED.

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

DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Clerk of Court shall close this case.

DATED this 24th day of July, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-00310-ROS Document 28 Filed 07/24/08 Page 3 of 3