Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01870/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01870-0/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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

TO THE HONORABLE NEIL V. WAKE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: 

 Petitioner Gary Bernard Lee, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison 

Complex-Yuma in San Luis, Arizona, has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

BACKGROUND 

 On December 18, 2008, Petitioner was indicted by a grand jury in the Maricopa 

County Superior Court (“Superior Court”), Case No. CR 2008-009355, on nine counts: 

one count of fraudulent schemes and artifices (Count 1); one count of aggravated taking 

of the identity of another (Count 2); one count of taking the identity of another (Count 4); 

and six counts of forgery (Count 3 and Counts 5 through 9). (Doc. 9-1, Exh. A.) The 

charges arose out of Petitioner’s use of a false Social Security number in a series of 

transactions that occurred between April and July of 2008. (Doc. 9-2 at 16, Exh. H.) See 

also State v. Lee, CA–CR 10–0305, 2012 WL 722985, *1 (Ariz. Ct. App. March 6, 

Gary Bernard Lee, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CV-12-01870-PHX-NVW (SPL)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

Case 2:12-cv-01870-NVW Document 22 Filed 09/30/13 Page 1 of 7
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 

2010). 

 Following an 8-day trial, on December 15, 2009, a jury found Petitioner guilty on 

all counts, with exception of Count 2, on which the jury was hung. (Doc. 9-1, Exh. B.) 

The jury also found that the State had proven two aggravating factors: (1) that Petitioner 

had a lengthy criminal history; and (2) that Petitioner had previously spent time in prison. 

(Id.) Upon the State’s motion, Count 2 was dismissed with prejudice on January 22, 

2010.1

 At sentencing, the Superior Court found Petitioner had been on probation at the 

time he committed the offenses, and he had also been convicted of two prior felony 

offences in the Superior Court of New Jersey.2

 Considering these factors, as well as the 

two proven aggravating factors, on March 26, 2010, the Superior Court sentenced 

Petitioner to concurrent aggravated terms of imprisonment totaling 20 years. (Doc. 9-1, 

Exh. C; Doc. 9-2 at 17, Exh. H.) 

 On April 14, 2010, Petitioner appealed his judgment to the Arizona Court of 

Appeals (“Appellate Court”), and filed an opening brief on May 23, 2011. (Doc. 9-1, 

Exh. D and E.) On appeal, Petitioner argued, through counsel, that the Superior Court 

 

1

 See http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/012010/m4062726.pdf

(last visited September 20, 2013). See Mack v. S. Bay Beer Distribs., Inc., 798 F.2d 1279, 

1282 (9th Cir. 1986), overruled on other grounds by Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v.

Solimino, 501 U.S. 104 (1991) (a court may take judicial notice of “matters of public 

record outside the pleadings.”); Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1114 & n. 5 (9th Cir. 

2003) (public records may be judicially noticed to show that a judicial proceeding 

occurred or that a document was filed in another court case); Lee v. City of Los Angeles,

250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001). 

2

 At issue during sentencing were four of Petitioner’s out-of-state convictions: (1) a 

1990 New Jersey conviction for theft by deception; (2) a 2000 New Jersey conviction for 

theft of services; (3) a 2001 New Jersey conviction for falsifying/tampering with records; 

and (4) a 2003 New Jersey conviction for theft of services. See Lee, 2012 WL 722985, 

*1. “[T]he trial court ruled that [Petitioner’s] 2003 New Jersey conviction for theft of 

services and his 2001 New Jersey conviction for falsifying/tampering with records, being 

his third and fourth prior convictions, constituted two prior historical felonies for 

sentence enhancement purposes, and it sentenced [Petitioner] accordingly. A.R.S. § 13–

105(22).” Id. at *2. 

Case 2:12-cv-01870-NVW Document 22 Filed 09/30/13 Page 2 of 7
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 

erred when it imposed enhanced sentences based on his out-of-state prior convictions. 

(Doc. 9-1, Exh. E.) In a memorandum decision filed on March 6, 2012, the Appellate 

Court affirmed Petitioner’s convictions and sentences. (Doc. 9-2, Exh. H.) Petitioner 

sought review of the decision by the Arizona Supreme Court (Doc. 9-2, Exh I), and on 

August 1, 2012, the Petition for Review was denied (Doc. 9-2, Exh. J). 

 On November 1, 2012, Petitioner filed a pro se Notice of Post-Conviction Relief. 

(Doc. 9-2, Exh. N.) In a minute entry dated November 13, 2012, the Superior Court 

dismissed the notice, finding that under Rule 32.4(a) of the Arizona Rules of Criminal 

Procedure, Petitioner had failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted in an 

untimely Rule 32 proceeding. (Doc. 9-2, Exh. O.) Petitioner moved to amend the notice 

on December 12, 2012 (Doc. 9-2, Exh. P), which the Superior Court construed as a 

second Notice of Post-Conviction Relief, and dismissed on December 20, 2012 (Doc. 9-

2, Exh. Q). Petitioner moved for re-hearing on the dismissal (Doc. 14 at 4), and the 

request was denied on March 7, 2013.3

 Petitioner filed a Petition for Special Action in the 

Arizona Supreme Court on March 27, 2013 (Doc. 16 at 4), which was denied on or about 

July 18, 2013.4

 Shortly before initiating state post-conviction relief proceedings, Petitioner filed 

the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) on September 5, 2012. 

Respondents filed a Limited Answer (Doc. 9), in which they argue that the one ground 

for relief raised in the petition is not cognizable for purposes of federal habeas review. 

Alternatively, Respondents contend that the claim was not exhausted in state court and is 

procedurally barred. Petitioner filed a Reply (Doc. 19), arguing that his claim should 

succeed on its merits. 

 

3

 See http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/032013/m5666736.pdf

(last visited September 30, 2013). 

4

 See http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CriminalCourtCases/index.asp

(last visited September 30, 2013). 

Case 2:12-cv-01870-NVW Document 22 Filed 09/30/13 Page 3 of 7
4 

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 

DISCUSSION

 In Ground One, Petitioner challenges the Superior Court’s application of Arizona 

sentencing laws. He argues that the Superior Court incorrectly determined that his New 

Jersey convictions were equivalent to Arizona felony convictions, and erred when it 

imposed enhanced sentences based on those prior convictions. This claim is not 

cognizable on federal habeas corpus review, and therefore the Court will recommend that 

it be denied. 

 The writ of habeas corpus affords relief to a person in custody pursuant to the 

judgment of a State court in violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United 

States. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c)(3), 2254(a). Federal habeas corpus relief is not available for 

errors of state law. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67 (1991); Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 

764, 780 (1990). As emphasized by the Supreme Court, “it is only noncompliance with 

federal law that renders a State’s criminal judgment susceptible to collateral attack in the 

federal courts. The habeas statute unambiguously provides that a federal court may issue 

a writ of habeas corpus to a state prisoner ‘only on the ground that he is in custody in 

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.’” Wilson v. 

Corcoran, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 13, 16 (2010) (original emphasis) (quoting 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254(a)). Federal courts accept a state court’s interpretation of state law “and alleged 

errors in the application of state law are not cognizable in federal habeas corpus.” 

Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir. 1996). It is not the policy of the federal 

courts to re-examine state court determinations of state law questions. Estelle, 502 U.S. at 

67-68. Moreover, a habeas petitioner cannot “transform a state law issue into a federal 

one by merely asserting a violation of due process.” Poland v. Stewart, 169 F.3d 573, 584 

(9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Langford, 110 F.3d at 1389). “[T]he Supreme Court has long 

settled that the Fourteenth Amendment does not assure immunity from judicial error or 

uniformity of judicial decisions.” Little v. Crawford, 449 F.3d 1075, 1082 (9th Cir. 2006). 

 Here, Petitioner’s claim turns solely on the interpretation and application of state 

law. This is illustrated by the Appellate Court’s decision, which relied exclusively on 

Case 2:12-cv-01870-NVW Document 22 Filed 09/30/13 Page 4 of 7
5 

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 

state law in determining whether Petitioner’s sentences were properly enhanced based on 

two prior historical felonies under A.R.S. § 13-105(22), the identical issue presented 

here; 

A.R.S. § 13–604(W)(2) permits a trial court to sentence a 

defendant who has historical prior felony convictions to an 

enhanced sentence. A defendant who has been convicted “in 

any court outside the jurisdiction of this state” may also be subjected to an enhanced sentence in Arizona if the offense 

for which he was convicted outside of Arizona is “an offense 

which if committed within this state would be punishable as a felony.” A.R.S. § 13–604(N). 

... 

Before using a foreign conviction to enhance an Arizona 

statute, a trial court must first determine that the foreign conviction includes “every element that would be required to prove an enumerated Arizona offense.” State v. Crawford, 214 Ariz. 129, 131, ¶ 7, 149 P.3d 753, 755 (2007) (quoting State v. Ault, 157 Ariz. 516, 521, 759 P.2d 1320, 1325 

(1988)). See also Smith, 219 Ariz. at 134, ¶ 10, 194 P.3d at 401. ... The trial court must rely solely on a comparison of the foreign crime to Arizona law, and extraneous information 

regarding the factual nature of the foreign conviction may be used only to narrow the foreign conviction to the subsection 

of the statute that served as the basis for the foreign conviction. Crawford, 214 Ariz. at 132, ¶¶ 10–11, 149 P.3d at 755.

Lee, 2012 WL 722985, *3. A state-law sentencing claim, such as this, is not subject to 

federal habeas corpus review. See Cacoperdo v. Demosthenes, 37 F.3d 504, 507 (9th Cir. 

1994) (finding that petitioner’s claim that the state court erred in imposing consecutive 

sentences was not cognizable in federal habeas); Hendricks v. Zenon, 993 F.2d 664, 674 

(9th Cir. 1993) (holding that “claim regarding merger of convictions for sentencing is 

exclusively concerned with state law and therefore not cognizable in a federal habeas 

corpus proceeding.”); Miller v. Vasquez, 868 F.2d 1116, 1118-19 (9th Cir. 1989) 

(refusing to consider alleged errors in violation of state sentencing law). 

 Although Petitioner contends that his sentence violated his right to due process 

under the Sixth (Doc. 1 at 6) and Fourteenth (Doc. 19 at 2) Amendments to the United 

States Constitution, his citations do not transform his state-law claim into a federal one. 

Case 2:12-cv-01870-NVW Document 22 Filed 09/30/13 Page 5 of 7
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 

See Bueno v. Hallahan, 988 F.2d 86, 88 (9th Cir. 1993) (“sentence enhancement on the 

basis of prior convictions ... does not violate the Constitution”). Because Petitioner’s 

claim constitutes a challenge to the application of state law, it is not cognizable on federal 

habeas corpus review. Accordingly, Ground One should be denied and the Petition 

should be dismissed. In view of this determination, the Court need not consider 

Respondents’ alternative arguments. 

CONCLUSION

 The record is sufficiently developed and the Court does not find that an 

evidentiary hearing is necessary for resolution of this matter. See Rhoades v. Henry, 638 

F.3d 1027, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011); Roberts v. Marshall, 627 F.3d 768, 773 (9th Cir. 2010). 

Based on the above analysis, the Court finds that Petitioner’s claim is not cognizable on 

federal habeas corpus review. The Court will therefore recommend that the Petition for 

Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) be denied and dismissed with prejudice. 

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. 

 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a Certificate of Appealability and 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be DENIED because Petitioner has not 

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 

 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 14 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 14 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 

Case 2:12-cv-01870-NVW Document 22 Filed 09/30/13 Page 6 of 7
7 

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 

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 judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s 

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

 Dated this 30th day of September, 2013. 

 

Case 2:12-cv-01870-NVW Document 22 Filed 09/30/13 Page 7 of 7