Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08049/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08049-0/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

Andrew J. Allerdice, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Dora B. Schriro and Arizona Attorney

General, 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-8049 PCT NVW (MEA)

ORDER

Pending before the court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of

Magistrate Judge Aspey (Doc. # 15) regarding petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. # 1). The R&R recommends that the

Petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge

advised the parties that they had ten days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 28

(citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)). Petitioner filed objections on December 28, 2007. (Doc. #

16.) 

The court has considered the objections and reviewed the Report and

Recommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that

the court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and

Recommendation to which specific objections are made). The court agrees with most of

the Magistrate Judge's determinations and accepts the recommended decision except that

part which rejects the Petitioner’s claim that his attorney’s decision to stipulate to the

Case 3:07-cv-08049-NVW Document 20 Filed 01/29/08 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

foundation and admissibility of evidence violated his right to due process (Doc. # 15 at

19-27). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or

modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”). 

With respect to that claim, the Magistrate Judge mistakenly predicates his

recommendation on the premise that the Petitioner did not object to the stipulations which

his counsel made at trial. Because this section of the R&R is founded on this

misunderstanding of the record, the court will reject it and refer this issue for further

consideration.

The new R&R should address the effect, if any, of the Petitioner’s objection to his

attorney’s stipulation at trial in light of United States v. Plitman, 194 F.3d 59 (2d Cir.

1999); United States v. Stephens, 609 F.2d 230 (5th Cir. 1980); Wilson v. Gray, 345 F.2d

282 (9th Cir. 1965); Cruzado v. Puerto Rico, 210 F.2d 789 (1st Cir. 1954); and any other

pertinent authority. Included in that question is whether a defendant’s explicit objection

to his attorney’s stipulation of evidence, even if not amounting to a guilty plea, violates

his constitutional rights. Of course, the issues of law must be viewed through the

standard provided in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 15) is accepted in part but is referred again to the Magistrate

Judge for a further report and recommendation concerning Petitioner’s claim that his

attorney’s stipulation to the foundation and admissibility of evidence over his objection

violated his right to due process (Doc. # 15 at 19-27). This is not a final or appealable

order, which will be entered only after the court considers the further report and

recommendation by the Magistrate Judge.

DATED this 28th day of January, 2008.

Case 3:07-cv-08049-NVW Document 20 Filed 01/29/08 Page 2 of 2