Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_14-cv-02443/USCOURTS-azd-4_14-cv-02443-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Timothy Kevin Owens,

Petitioner,

v.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Respondents.

______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV-14-2443-TUC-DCB

ORDER

This matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and the local rules of practice of

this Court for a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on the Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1). Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s

Report and Recommendation (Doc. 36). The Magistrate Judge recommends to

the Court that relief may be granted as to one claim with denial of the

remaining claims. The Petitioner filed Objections (Doc. 37) and the

Respondents filed a Reply (Doc. 38).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When objection is made to the findings and recommendation of a

magistrate judge, the district court must conduct a de novo review.

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Case 4:14-cv-02443-DCB Document 39 Filed 06/20/16 Page 1 of 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 2

PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS

Petitioner generally objects to all of the legal and evidentiary

conclusions contained in the Report and Recommendation: (1)finding

preclusion as to grounds 9-13, 15-18, 19-22 (Doc. 37 at 1, 7, 10, 11,

13); (2) finding procedural default (Doc. 37 at 2); (3) failure to

conduct an evidentiary hearing (Doc. 37 at 3); and, (4) finding claim 7

did not have a reasonable likelihood of success (Doc. 37 at 6). 

DISCUSSION 

The Court finds that the Report and Recommendation is thorough and

well-considered. The Respondents have no Objections to the Report and

Recommendation. Petitioner’s Objections reiterate all of the original

claims with no additional specific examples of error.

Owens was convicted in the Superior Court of Pima County of

twenty-two felonies: illegally conducting an enterprise,

conspiracy to commit unlawful possession and/or

transportation of a dangerous drug for sale, six counts of

possession of a dangerous drug for sale, possession of a

dangerous drug, possession of a motor vehicle with an

altered serial number or identification number, possession

of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony drug

offense, possession of drug paraphernalia, three counts of

use of a wire communication in a drug-related transaction,

attempted unlawful use of a means of transportation, firstdegree burglary, kidnapping, two counts of soliciting

threats and intimidation, solicitation to commit kidnapping,

and solicitation to commit first-degree murder. (Doc. 13,

Ex. UU at 1-2.) 

(R&R at 1-2.)

The R&R was resolved without a hearing and this Court agrees that

none was required. (R&R at 47.) The R&R properly found that Claims 2,

3, 5, 6, 9-18, and 20 are procedurally defaulted. (R&R at 14.) This

Court agrees that: Claim 1 is barred from review; Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9-

13, 15-18, and 20 are procedurally defaulted and Petitioner has not

established cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice

Case 4:14-cv-02443-DCB Document 39 Filed 06/20/16 Page 2 of 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

1

Petitioner alleged trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for

failing to raise the prohibition against double jeopardy as to Count 33,

which became Count 7 in the indictment presented to the jury. The court

entered judgment on Count 7 as possession of a dangerous drug for sale

committed on November 7, 2004, not importation. (Doc. 13, Ex. MM at 4-5.)

The court entered judgment for the same crime as to Count 8. (Id. at 5.)

Ultimately, the Court sentenced Petitioner twice for these duplicate

offenses, not for one count of possession and one count of importation.

(Id. at 14; Ex. NN at 6-7.) Petitioner’s sentences for Counts 7 and 8

constitute multiple punishments for the same offense, which is

unquestionably precluded by the double jeopardy clause. See Brown v.

Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 165 (1977). (Doc. 36 at 26-27.)

3

to overcome the defaults; Claims 6, 11, 20, and the in effective

assistance of counsel (IAC) portions of Claims 9, 12, 13, and 15-18 fail

on the merits; Claims 4, 7, and 8 are properly exhausted but lack merit;

and, Claims 19, 21 and 22 are not legally cognizable, in part, and lack

merit, in part. The Court will adopt the R&R and will deny Claims 1-13

and 15-22. 

The Court will also adopt the recommendation that Claim 14 is

procedurally defaulted, but that Petitioner has established cause and

prejudice to overcome the default. The Court finds Petitioner is entitled

to relief on Claim 14. This Court will grant the writ as to this claim,

which results in overturning the conviction and sentence on Count 71 of

the Indictment, as follows:

The Arizona Court of Appeals holds that when a defendant is

sentenced twice for the same offense, one of the sentences

must be vacated even if they were imposed concurrently and

did not increase the length of imprisonment. See State v.

Brown, 177 P.3d 878, 882-83, 217 Ariz. 617, 621-22 (Ct. App.

2008).

In finding that the underlying claims of trial and appellate

IAC are meritorious, the Court necessarily finds that PCR

counsel was deficient in failing to raise these substantial

claims. See Detrich v. Ryan, 740 F.3d 1237, 1245-46 (9th

Cir. 2013). Therefore, there is cause to excuse the default of the IAC portion of Claim 14. Id. And, the

Court finds it

wins on the merits.

(R&R at 28.)

Case 4:14-cv-02443-DCB Document 39 Filed 06/20/16 Page 3 of 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

2

After a 7-day jury trial, the state court jury convicted Petitioner

of all 22 counts alleged in the indictment. (Exhibit JJ; Exhibit EE, at

37–44.) The jury also found all of the state’s sentencing enhancement

allegations true, beyond a reasonable doubt. (Id.) On February 12, 2007,

the state trial court sentenced Petitioner to six concurrent life

sentences without parole eligibility for 25 years (Counts 3, 7–8, 19–21)

and 16 lesser prison terms, which ran concurrently with the life

sentences. (Exhibit NN; Exhibit MM, at 13–18.) (Doc. 13 at 23.) Thus,

the result here is that, in all likelihood, Petitioner will serve five

rather than six concurrent life sentences without parole eligibility for

25 years.

4

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, after conducting a de novo review of the record,

IT IS ORDERED that the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation

(Doc. 36) in its entirety. The Objections (Doc. 37) raised by the

Petitioner are OVERRULED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

is DENIED on all claims but for claim 14. The Petition is GRANTED on

claim 14, thereby overturning the conviction and sentence on Count 7 of

the state court Indictment.2 This action is remanded to the state court

for resentencing based on this Order. Clerk’s Office to enter Judgment.

DATED this 17th day of June, 2016.

Case 4:14-cv-02443-DCB Document 39 Filed 06/20/16 Page 4 of 4