Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00312/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00312-0/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

*

 Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Charles L. Ryan, the

Interim Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections, replaces Dora Schriro.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Vickie Ann Dean, ) No. CIV 08-0312-PHX-JWS (DKD)

)

Petitioner, ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

)

vs. )

)

Charles L. Ryan,*

 et al., )

)

Respondents. )

____________________________)

TO THE HONORABLE JOHN W. SEDWICK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

Vickie Ann Dean filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on February 19, 2008,

challenging her convictions in Maricopa County Superior Court for Armed Robbery,

Burglary and Forgery, with prior convictions, and the imposition of concurrent prison terms,

the longest being 15.75 years. She presents four grounds for habeas relief: (1) ineffective

assistance of counsel; (2) a Blakely sentencing violation; (3) Fifth and Sixth Amendment

violations; and (4) a conflict of interest between state offices and/or agencies. Respondents

contend that Dean’s petition is untimely. The Court agrees and recommends that her petition

be denied and dismissed with prejudice.

Dean pleaded guilty on October 16, 2002, and was sentenced on November 15, 2002

(Doc. #13, Exh O-W). She filed a notice of post-conviction relief on January 13, 2003; on

Case 2:08-cv-00312-JWS Document 15 Filed 10/26/09 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 -

August 11, 2003, counsel filed a notice indicating that he had been unable to find any claims

for relief, and requested an extension of time to allow Dean to file a pro per petition (Id., Exh

X, Y). On November 25, 2003, the trial court summarily dismissed Dean’s post-conviction

proceedings because she had failed to file a petition (Id., Exh Z). On October 15, 2004, Dean

filed a second notice of post-conviction relief, asserting a Blakeley claim (Id., Exh AA). On

April 22, 2005, the trial court dismissed Dean’s notice of post-conviction relief, ruling that

Blakely does not apply retroactively to convictions that are final, and that her conviction had

become final when the time passed for appellate review of her Rule 32 of-right proceedings

(Id., Exh BB). On May 20, 2005, Dean filed a petition for review with the Arizona Court of

Appeals; on January 27, 2006, the court of appeals denied review (Doc. #1, Attachment).

On February 14, 2006, Dean filed a petition for review with the Arizona Supreme Court; on

July 7, 2006, the supreme court denied review (Id.). On August 13, 2007, Dean filed in this

Court a motion for extension of time within which to file a habeas petition (Doc. #1,

Attachment). On August 28, 2007, the Court denied her motion, construing her motion as

one seeking an advisory opinion regarding the application of time limits for filing a habeas

petition as a state court prisoner (Doc. #1, Attachment). The Court ruled that it lacked

jurisdiction to entertain such a motion (Id.). Dean filed her federal petition on February 19,

2008.

Dean was required to file her federal petition within 1 year of the date the judgment

of conviction became final in state court “by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration

of the time for seeking such review.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). Pursuant to section

2244(d)(2), “[t]he time during which a properly filed application for state post-conviction or

other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not

be counted toward any period of limitation under this subsection.” However, an untimely

pleading in state court does not statutorily toll the limitations period. See Allen v. Siebert,

552 U.S. 3, 5 (2007). An untimely state post-conviction petition is not properly filed within

the meaning of the statute even if the state court also examines the merits of the claim or the

Case 2:08-cv-00312-JWS Document 15 Filed 10/26/09 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 - 3 -

timeliness ruling is “entangled with the merits.” Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 413-

415 (2005).

Dean’s conviction became final and the limitations period began to run on November

15, 2002, the day she was sentenced, and it was tolled 59 days later on January 13, 2003,

when she timely filed her notice of post-conviction relief. See Isley v. Az. Dept. of

Corrections, 383 F.3d 1054, 1055 (9th Cir. 2004). It remained tolled until November 25,

2003, when the trial court dismissed her post-conviction proceedings. Dean filed a second

notice of post-conviction relief 325 days later, during which time Dean had no properly filed

post-conviction application pending. Her second petition did not toll the already running

limitations period, because the notice was untimely. See Siebert. Indeed, the limitations

period had already expired when she filed her second petition, and its filing did not serve to

restart the clock once the one-year period had lapsed. See Jiminez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478, 482

(9th Cir. 2001). Therefore, her federal petition, filed over three and one half years after the

expiration of the limitations period, is untimely. Finally, assuming that federal courts have

the authority to create equitable exceptions to jurisdictional time limitations set by Congress,

see Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007), Dean is not entitled to equitable tolling. She has

not shown extraordinary circumstances beyond her control which made it impossible for her

to timely file: that she diligently pursued her rights and that some "extraordinary

circumstance stood in her way." Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005). The

record shows instead a lack of diligence on her part, as indicated by long periods of time

between pleadings filed in state court.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Vickie Ann Dean’s petition for writ

of habeas corpus be denied and dismissed with prejudice (Doc. #1).

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 ten days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within

Case 2:08-cv-00312-JWS Document 15 Filed 10/26/09 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 - 4 -

which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules

72, 6(a), 6(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have ten days within

which to file a response to the objections. Failure timely to file objections to the Magistrate

Judge's Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and

Recommendation by the district court without further review. See United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure timely to 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 or judgment entered pursuant to the

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 26th day of October, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-00312-JWS Document 15 Filed 10/26/09 Page 4 of 4