Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-00350/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-00350-0/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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Bradley Hugh Tocker,

Petitioner,

v. 

David Shinn, et al.,

Respondents.

No. CV-19-00350-PHX-SRB

ORDER 

Petitioner Bradley Tocker filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2254 on January 10, 2019 raising six grounds for relief: 1) trial counsel was 

constitutionally ineffective for failure to challenge the admissibility of the luminol test results 

for the presence of blood (Doc. 1 at 6); 2) trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for 

not challenging the admissibility of the State’s luminol expert’s testimony about the luminol 

test results (Id. at 7); 3) trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for not challenging the 

admissibility of the State’s luminol expert’s testimony by putting on controverting expert 

witness testimony (Id. at 8); 4) trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to 

challenge the State’s computer expert’s testimony about evidence of internet searches 

introduced as proof of premeditation (Id. at 9); 5) that the trial court’s denial of his motion 

to sever his gun charge violated his due process rights, that his trial counsel was ineffective 

for failing to “get [the gun charge] out of the trial”, and that his PCR attorney was ineffective 

for refusing to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for trial counsel’s failure 

to successfully sever the gun charge (Doc. 1 at 10. Doc. 17 at 19-26); and 6) trial counsel 

Case 2:19-cv-00350-SRB Document 19 Filed 06/08/20 Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

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

would not permit Petitioner to testify (Id. at 11) and Petitioner alleges that trial counsel told 

him he would “get no plea deal if [he] gave the location of the body.” (Id.) Respondents 

filed their Response to Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on August 12, 2019. 

Petitioner filed his reply October 7, 2019. On May 14, 2020, the Magistrate Judge issued her

Report and Recommendation recommending that the petition be denied and dismissed with 

prejudice.

In her Report and Recommendation the Magistrate Judge advised the parties that 

they had fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of the Report and Recommendation 

within which to file specific written objections with the Court. The time to file such 

objections has expired and no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed.

The Court finds itself in agreement with the Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge.

IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate 

Judge as the Order of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and 

dismissing it with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying any Certificate of Appealability and leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because dismissal of Grounds Four and Six is 

justified by a plain procedural bar and reasonable jurists would not find the procedural 

ruling debatable and as to Grounds Two, Three and Five Petitioner has not made a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly.

Dated this 8th day of June, 2020.

Case 2:19-cv-00350-SRB Document 19 Filed 06/08/20 Page 2 of 2