Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_00-cv-00936/USCOURTS-azd-2_00-cv-00936-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

ROBERT L. JARAMILLO, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

DORA B. SCHRIRO, et al., 

Respondents. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 00-0936-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Request for Leave of Court to File his Amended

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Dkt. 212.) Specifically, Petitioner requests permission

to “amend his Petition for writ of habeas corpus based on this Court’s erroneous introduction

into evidence against Petitioner [of] written police reports of DOC Officer Bobby Warren in

violation of Petitioner’s constitutional right under the Confrontation Clause by failing to strike

the report of Bobby Warren.” (Id. at 2, emphasis added.) As set forth below, this Court denies

Petitioner’s request.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On May 16, 2000, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.

§2254 asserting that his guilty plea was unlawfully induced and not voluntarily made because

the prosecution failed to disclose the existence of a witness, Wayne Graham, in violation of

Brady (the “Petition”). (Dkt. 1.) On December 6, 2001, this Court denied Petitioner’s Petition

on the grounds that his Brady claim was procedurally defaulted for failure to exhaust in the

Arizona state courts. (Dkt. 12.) On December 18, 2001, this Court denied Petitioner’s Request

Case 2:00-cv-00936-SMM Document 215 Filed 12/04/06 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

1

 The Ninth Circuit stated: "Jaramillo has presented sufficient evidence, if credible, to support a finding

that he is actually innocent of first degree murder. Foremost is the previously undisclosed testimony of Graham,

who provided a declaration stating that Abeyta initiated the attack, that Jaramillo wrested the shank from Abeyta,

and that he stabbed Abeyta in self-defense. The second item of proof offered is the autopsy report." Jarmillo,

340 F.3d at 883. 

2

 The Ninth Circuit stated "There remains a question of the credibility of the proffered evidence. . . .

A remand for an evidentiary hearing would allow the parties to develop the factual record . . . . The district court

is in the best position to observe the witnesses, including Graham . . . under cross-examination, together with

the other evidence available, and to make the ultimate credibility determinations." Id.

- 2 -

for a Certificate of Appealability. (Dkt. 15.) On August 13, 2002, the Ninth Circuit granted

Petitioner a Certificate of Appealability (dkt. 18) and appointed him counsel. 

On August 20, 2003, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of this

Court and remanded for further proceedings in Jaramillo v. Stewart, 340 F.3d 877 (9th Cir.

2003). The Ninth Circuit held that Petitioner has alleged newly discovered evidence that, if

credible, raises a sufficient doubt about his guilt such that he may be “actually innocent” of the

charged crime under the standard of Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995). The Court of

Appeals focused on the specific issue of “whether Jaramillo’s claim of actual innocence is

sufficient to require a hearing before the district court to determine whether the facts justify

consideration of the merits of the constitutional claim, despite the procedural default.”

Jaramillo, 340 F.3d at 878. Citing Graham’s undisclosed testimony and the autopsy report,1

 the

Ninth Circuit answered this query in the affirmative and remanded the case for this Court to

conduct an evidentiary hearing on the issue. In Jaramillo, the Ninth Circuit also identified the

principal purpose of the evidentiary hearing as the determination of the credibility of the

proffered evidence, in particular Graham’s affidavit.2

 

Pursuant to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ order in Jaramillo v. Stewart, 340 F.3d

877, this Court held an evidentiary hearing on August 16-19, 2005, to determine whether

Petitioner’s procedurally defaulted Brady claim may be reviewed on the merits under the “actual

innocence” exception of Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995). 

On September 19, 2005, this Court issued an Order denying Petitioner’s Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus. (Dkt. 189.) After consideration of all the evidence presented at the

Case 2:00-cv-00936-SMM Document 215 Filed 12/04/06 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 -

evidentiary hearing, this Court found that Petitioner’s procedurally defaulted Petition must be

denied as a matter of law because Petitioner did not produce sufficient evidence that he is

actually innocent of murder.

Specifically, this Court found: 

(1) neither Wayne Graham nor his affidavit are credible; 

(2) Petitioner did not act in self-defense; 

(3) Petitioner failed to offer any credible newly presented evidence in support of his 

 actual innocence claim; and

(4) there is overwhelming factual, forensic and circumstantial evidence by which a

 reasonable jury would find Petitioner guilty of capital first degree murder. 

On November 11, 2005, Petitioner filed a Request for Certificate of Appealability from

the Court’s Order dated September 19, 2005. (Dkt. 205.) Among other things, Petitioner

argued that he should be permitted to appeal the Court’s order because reasonable jurists could

conclude that he was deprived of his rights under the Confrontation Clause when this Court

failed to apply the principles set forth in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), during

the course of his evidentiary hearing. 

In a lengthy, fifteen-page Memorandum of Decision issued on February 17, 2006, this

Court denied Petitioner’s Request for a Certificate of Appealability. (Dkt. 207.) With respect

to the claim that Petitioner now seeks to add to his Petition, the Court specifically rejected his

argument that reasonable jurists could conclude this Court deprived him of his rights under the

Confrontation Clause by failing to strike the report of Bobby Warren under the principles

espoused in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). This contention was rejected for

four, separate reasons.

First, this Court determined that issues concerning the application of Crawford and

Petitioner’s Sixth Amendment right were not before the Ninth Circuit in Jaramillo v. Stewart,

340 F.3d 877 (2003), as Crawford had not yet been decided at that time. (Dkt. 207 at 8.)

Likewise, this Court explained that the Crawford issue was not addressed in its Order denying

his Petition, because that Order addressed only this Court’s findings after the evidentiary

Case 2:00-cv-00936-SMM Document 215 Filed 12/04/06 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 -

hearing conducted (pursuant to the specific instructions of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)

to determine whether Petitioner’s procedurally defaulted Brady claim could be reviewed on the

merits under the “actual innocence” exception. See id.; dkt. 189. The Court also noted

Petitioner’s concession that these issues were not properly before the Court, by requesting

permission to side-step the proper procedural avenues for litigating any Crawford claim. Id.

 Second, notwithstanding these procedural hurdles, the Court also determined that

Petitioner waived his Confrontation Clause rights when he pled guilty in Pinal County Superior

Court. See United States v. Mezzanatto, 513 U.S. 196, 201, 115 S.Ct. 797, 801 (1995) (citing

Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 1712 (1969)). The record demonstrates

that Petitioner filed a motion with the state court to have the grand jury transcript and 89-page

packet (that contained Officer Warren’s report) constitute the factual basis for his guilty plea.

See dkt. 172 at 2. The Court further finds, as it did in its Order dated August 9, 2005, that: 

1) Petitioner signed his initials on the motion to have these documents form the factual basis of

his guilty plea; 2) Petitioner confirmed to the court that he initialed the motion; 3) Petitioner

avowed to the court that he had reviewed all of the documents and knew their contents; 

4) Petitioner’s attorney confirmed that Petitioner had reviewed the documents in his presence;

and 5) the state court repeatedly confirmed with Petitioner that his intent was to have these

documents serve as the factual basis of his guilty plea. See id. at 7-8. Based on these facts, this

Court found that Petitioner knowingly and intelligently waived his rights under the Sixth

Amendment to confront his accuser. See dkt. 207 at 8-9.

Third, this Court noted, as it did in its Order dismissing Petitioner’s Petition, that this is

a civil habeas corpus proceeding and the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment applies

to criminal prosecutions; therefore, the Confrontation Clause is inapplicable to this civil habeas

corpus proceeding. Id. at 9. In doing so, this Court also rejected Petitioner’s argument that the

Sixth Amendment should have been applied to the evidentiary hearing based on the Supreme

Court’s language in O’Neal v. McAnich, 513 U.S. 432, 115 S.Ct. 992 (1995), that “[u]nlike the

civil cases cited by the State, the errors being considered by a habeas court occurred in a

criminal proceeding and therefore although a habeas is a civil proceeding, someone’s custody,

Case 2:00-cv-00936-SMM Document 215 Filed 12/04/06 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

- 5 -

rather than mere civil liability, is at stake.” Id. at 440. This Court noted, however, that the

Supreme Court in O’Neal was addressing an error that had occurred during the petitioner’s

criminal trial. Here, by contrast, Petitioner alleged that the Court committed an error when it

failed to strike a report from a civil habeas evidentiary hearing. Significantly, Petitioner did

not, and could not allege that error occurred during his trial as Petitioner did not stand trial.

Thus, this Court found Petitioner’s reliance on O'Neal to be misplaced. See Dkt. 207 at 9.

For all three of these reasons, this Court specifically determined that Petitioner had failed

to demonstrate reasonable jurists could debate it was error to decline to apply Crawford to the

Evidentiary Hearing. Id.

On March 1, 2006, one week after this Court denied Petitioner’s Request for a Certificate

of Appealability, Petitioner filed a Request for Certificate of Appealability with the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. See Jaramillo v. Schriro, et al., No. 06-15334. On September 11,

2006, the Ninth Circuit summarily denied Petitioner’s request for a Certificate of Appealability,

terminated his appeal, and further denied all “outstanding motions.” (Dkt. 211.)

DISCUSSION

On October 19, 2006, Petitioner filed the instant Request for Leave to File an Amended

Habeas Petition based upon his claim that the admission of Officer Warren’s report at the actual

innocence evidentiary hearing violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth

Amendment. (Dkt. 212 at 2.) In support of his request, Petitioner cites Bockting v. Bayer, 399

F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2005), which holds that the Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford applies

retroactively. 

This Court denies Petitioner’s Request for Leave to File an Amended Habeas Petition

for two reasons. First, Petitioner contends the alleged Crawford error occurred during federal

court proceedings prior to the actual innocence evidentiary hearing. See Dkt. 212 at 2.

Petitioner’s instant Petition was filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which was enacted to redress

violations of federal law by state courts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Thus, Petitioner may not

amend his § 2254 Petition – which previously alleged a state court violation of his Brady rights

during criminal proceedings in Pinal County Superior Court – to add a Confrontation Clause

Case 2:00-cv-00936-SMM Document 215 Filed 12/04/06 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 -

claim arising out of this Court’s rulings prior to and during the actual innocence evidentiary

hearing. In other words, Petitioner’s §2254 Petition cannot be amended to add a claim arising

from the rulings of this federal Court in a collateral proceeding.

Second, the doctrines of law of the case and collateral estoppel prevent Petitioner from

raising this Confrontation Clause claim for a fourth time. This Court specifically rejected

Petitioner’s Crawford challenge to Officer Warren’s report prior to the evidentiary hearing and

when it denied Petitioner’s Certificate of Appealability. See dkts. 172 at 5-6; 207 at 8-9.

Presumably, Petitioner also raised this argument in his Request for Certificate of Appealability

filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which was denied. See Dkt. 211. The instant

motion presents the fourth time Petitioner has raised – and this Court (and possibly another

Court) has rejected – his Confrontation Clause argument.

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DENYING Petitioner’s Motion for Leave of Court to File

his Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Dkt. 212.)

DATED this 4th day of December, 2006.

Case 2:00-cv-00936-SMM Document 215 Filed 12/04/06 Page 6 of 6