Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02962/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02962-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Daris Keith Brown, 

Petitioner,

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al.,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-2962-PHX-PGR (JI)

 

 ORDER

Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

Judge Irwin in light of the petitioner’s Objection to Report and Recommendation

on Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (doc. #19),

the Court finds that the petitioner’s objections should be overruled and that the

Magistrate Judge correctly determined that the petitioner’s § 2254 petition should

be dismissed with prejudice as it was filed some 45 months after the expiration of

the limitations period set forth in Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act

of 1996, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).

First, the Court rejects the petitioner’s request that the Court return this

matter to the state court so that the state court can reconsider its denial of his

Petition for Post-Conviction Relief by applying Danforth v. Minnesota, U.S. ,

128 S.Ct. 1029 (2008), to Ariz.R.Crim.P. 32.1(g). The only issue before this

Case 2:06-cv-02962-PGR Document 20 Filed 05/27/08 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

1

 As established by the Schardt decision, the trial judge’s imposition of a

sentence greater than the presumptive sentence based on his factfinding

regarding aggravating factors did not violate clearly established federal law at the

time the petitioner’s sentence became final. See Devincentis v. Quinn, 2008 WL

399303, at *3 (9th Cir. Feb. 13, 2008) (Court, in rejecting prisoner’s argument that

his sentence violated Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), because his

sentence was increased based on facts found by the judge rather than a jury,

noted that “[w]e held [in Schardt] that prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in

Blakely ..., it was not a violation of clearly established federal law to impose a

sentence greater than the standard sentencing range but within the statutory

maximum based on findings made by a judge rather than a jury.”) 

- 2 -

Court is whether the petitioner timely filed his § 2254 petition in this Court, and

Danforth is not applicable to that issue.

Second, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the Supreme

Court’s decision in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), does not affect

the running of the AEDPA’s limitations period as the conclusion of the petitioner’s

direct review occurred prior to Blakely. See Schardt v. Payne, 414 F.3d 1025,

1027 (9th Cir. 2005) (“We conclude that Blakely does not apply retroactively to

convictions that became final prior to its publication.”)1

 

Third, the Court also agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the petitioner

has not established that the limitations period should be equitably tolled. Tolling

is appropriate only when a petitioner establishes both that he pursued his rights

diligently and that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way. Pace v.

DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005); he must also establish that the

extraordinary circumstance was the cause of the untimeliness of his petition.

Bryant v. Arizona Attorney General, 499 F.3d 1056, 1061 (9th Cir. 2007). The

petitioner, at the very least, has not met his burden of showing a causal link as he

has not shown that any of the circumstances he conclusorily raises, i.e. that he is

Case 2:06-cv-02962-PGR Document 20 Filed 05/27/08 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

- 3 -

pro se and untrained in the law, that he lacked access to case law and had

limited time available to him to use the law library, and that his trial and PCR

counsel were ineffective, actually precluded him from timely filing his § 2254

petition. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation

(doc. #16) is accepted and adopted by the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus by a Person in State Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is denied in

its entirety and that this action is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court

shall enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 27th day of May, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-02962-PGR Document 20 Filed 05/27/08 Page 3 of 3