Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01159/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01159-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Delanie Ross,

 Petitioner,

vs.

Charles L. Ryan. et al.,

 Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-14-01159-PHX-PGR (MHB)

 ORDER

 

 

Having considered de novo the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

Judge Burns in light of Petitioner’s Objection(s) to Magistrate’s Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 31), the respondents’ Response to Petitioner’s Objections

to Report and Recommendation (Doc. 32), and the petitioner’s Reply to Response

to Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 33), the Court finds that the petitioner’s objections

should be overruled as meritless because the Magistrate Judge correctly determined

that the petitioner’s habeas corpus petition, timely filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2254, should be denied in its entirety.

The petitioner was convicted after a jury trial of three counts of fraudulent

schemes and artifices and one count of theft. In Ground One of his federal habeas

petition, the petitioner argues that the state trial court lost jurisdiction over him as a

Case 2:14-cv-01159-PGR Document 35 Filed 10/28/15 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

- 2 -

result of the allegedly improper process the state used to obtain a second indictment

against him after his case was sent back to the grand jury. The Court agrees that

this claim is not cognizable in a federal habeas proceeding as it involves the

interpretation and application of state law. To the extent that the claim raises a

federal constitutional due process issue, the Court further agrees that it is in any

case without merit because the thorough decision of the Arizona Court of Appeals

rejecting the claim, which was the state courts’ last reasoned decision on this issue,

was neither contrary to, or an unreasonable applied of, clearly established federal

law as determined by the United States Supreme Court, nor was it based on an

unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the

state court proceeding.

In his Ground Two, the petitioner argues that he was convicted without

sufficient proof because the jury was permitted to decide his case on an

impermissible theory of guilt, i.e. that he was an accomplice, notwithstanding that

they weren’t given any jury instruction on accomplice liability. The Court agrees this

claim is not cognizable in a federal habeas proceeding to the extent that the

petitioner is arguing that he was not given a jury instruction that should have been

given pursuant to state law. The Court further agrees that this claim is in any case

meritless given that the Arizona Court of Appeal’s comprehensive determination that

there was substantial evidence establishing the petitioner’s guilt on all claims for

which he was convicted was not an unreasonable application of the clearly

established federal law on the sufficiency of evidence as set forth by Jackson v.

Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)n or was it was it an unreasonable determination

of the facts of the case.

In his Ground Three, the petitioner argues that the sentence imposed in his

Case 2:14-cv-01159-PGR Document 35 Filed 10/28/15 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

- 3 -

judgment of conviction is illegal because it differed from the sentence orally

pronounced by the trial court. The Court agrees that this state law sentencing claim

is also not cognizable in a federal habeas proceeding, and that to the extent it raises

a federal constitutional claim it is in any case meritless because the Arizona Court

of Appeals’ extensive reasoning for denying the claim, wherein it noted that the trial

court, after a hearing, had clarified the sentences it imposed on the petitioner, was

not contrary to, or an unreasonable applied of, clearly established federal law, nor

was it based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence

presented in the state court proceeding. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation

(Doc. 30) is accepted and adopted by the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. §

2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody is denied and that

this action is dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability shall not issue

and that the petitioner is not entitled to appeal in forma pauperis because the

petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right

and has not demonstrated that reasonable jurists would find the Court’s assessment

of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment

accordingly.

DATED this 28th day of October, 2015.

Case 2:14-cv-01159-PGR Document 35 Filed 10/28/15 Page 3 of 3