Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02096/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02096-1/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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert William Hoyer, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV08-2096-PHX-SRB

ORDER

Petitioner Robert William Hoyer filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on

November 12, 2008. In his Petition he raised four grounds for habeas relief. First, Petitioner

claims his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial was violated by the court finding

aggravating factors at his sentencing. Second, Petitioner alleges his Fifth Amendment right

to due process was violated based upon the use of alleged perjured testimony in grand jury

proceedings. Petitioner's third and fourth grounds for habeas relief are alleged claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel based upon counsel's alleged failure to interview

prosecution witnesses and fully investigate the case and counsel's failure to challenge the

court's finding of aggravating factors. Respondents answered the Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus on April 17, 2009. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a Traverse. 

On April 22, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued his Report and Recommendation

recommending that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied and dismissed with

Case 2:08-cv-02096-SRB Document 21 Filed 09/16/10 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

prejudice. The Magistrate Judge found that with respect to Petitioner's claims regarding

alleged perjured testimony before the grand jury, Petitioner's guilty plea limits habeas review

to the constitutionality of the proceedings surrounding the plea process. The Magistrate

Judge also concluded that the trial court did not commit a Blakely violation in finding an

aggravating factor at sentencing because the aggravating factor involved the fact that

Petitioner acted with an accomplice. As noted by the Magistrate Judge, by pleading guilty

to conspiracy counts Petitioner necessarily admitted that he acted with an accomplice. Facts

admitted by a defendant do not need to be found by a jury to satisfy the constitutional

requirements. Finally, the Magistrate Judge found no ineffective assistance of counsel on

either of the two bases raised by Petitioner. Because there was no Blakely violation, there

was no ineffective assistance by failing to raise it. Ineffective assistance of counsel requires

a showing of both deficiencies in counsel's performance and that the outcome of the

proceeding would probably had been different but for counsel's deficiencies. The Magistrate

Judge pointed out that other than claiming that there should have been more investigation and

more witness interviews Petitioner does not state what information would have been

obtained from such interviews resulting in a reasonable probability that the outcome of his

case would have been different. 

After receiving an extension of time, Petitioner filed timely written objections to the

Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. While these written objections object to

each of the findings with respect to the first, second, third and fourth claims in the habeas

petition, they constitute no more than a re-argument of Petitioner's case. Petitioner fails to

point out any factual or legal errors made by the Magistrate Judge and simply disagrees with

what the Court finds are correct conclusions concerning Petitioner's four claims. Petitioner

cannot claim on habeas review that perjured testimony was presented to the grand jury

because, as correctly noted by the Magistrate Judge, any challenges to what may have

occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea are precluded, citing Ortberg v. Moody, 961 F.2d

135, 137-38 (9th Cir. 1992). Petitioner's constitutional claim regarding the finding of

aggravating factors is similarly without merit since the aggravating factor found was one

Case 2:08-cv-02096-SRB Document 21 Filed 09/16/10 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

necessarily admitted by Petitioner when he pled guilty to conspiracy offenses. The state

court's finding of the aggravating factor and denial of the Petition for Post-Conviction Relief

raising the Blakely claim is neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of existing

federal constitutional law as announced by the United States Supreme Court.

Finally, the claims for ineffective assistance of counsel are denied for the reasons

expressed by the Magistrate Judge. Because there is no Blakely violation counsel was not

ineffective for failing to raise it. Petitioner has failed to show that interviewing more

witnesses or doing any further investigation would have had a reasonable probability of

effecting the outcome of this case. 

IT IS ORDERED overruling Petitioner's objections to the Report and

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge as the order of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is

denied and dismissed with prejudice.

DATED this 16th day of September, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-02096-SRB Document 21 Filed 09/16/10 Page 3 of 3