Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01654/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01654-0/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 1

 Clerk’s record number.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Don L. Meeker, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Terry L. Stewart, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 05-1654-PHX-ROS (GEE)

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

On June 2, 2005, Don L. Meeker, an inmate currently confined in the Arizona State

Prison Complex in Winslow, AZ, filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

Title 28, United States Code, Section 2254. (Petition.); [#1]1

 Before the court are the Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the respondent’s Answer and the petitioner’s Reply.

Pursuant to the Rules of Practice of this Court, this matter was referred to Magistrate

Judge Edmonds for report and recommendation. The Magistrate Judge recommends the District

Court, after its independent review of the record, enter an order denying the Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner does not raise a cognizable claim.

//

//

Case 2:05-cv-01654-ROS Document 13 Filed 11/17/06 Page 1 of 5
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

 A.R.S. § 13-604.01(A) (Supp. 1982), later renumbered as A.R.S. § 13-604.02 by 1985 Ariz.

Sess. Laws, ch. 364, § 5. (Respondent’s Answer, Exhibit 6, p. 2.)

- 2 -

Summary of the Case

On June 16, 1983, Meeker was sentenced in Maricopa County Superior Court on nine

counts of armed robbery and one count of aggravated assault. (Respondent’s Answer, Exhibit

1, affidavit.) For every count, he received a sentence of life with eligibility for parole after 25

years. Id. Count 1 ran consecutive to an earlier sentence. Id. “Counts 2 through 8 concurrent

to Count 1. . . .” Id. “Count 9 [was] consecutive to Counts 1 through 8, and Count 10 [was]

consecutive to Count 9.” Id. These were “flat-time” sentences to be served “day-for-day.”

(Respondent’s Answer, Exhibit 6, pp. 7-8.) In other words, Meeker was not eligible for goodtime sentencing credits. Id.

In 1994, the statute under which Meeker was sentenced2

 was amended replacing the life

sentence, which Meeker received, with a minimum term of years. (Respondent’s Answer,

Exhibit 6, p. 3.) To ameliorate the disparity between sentences imposed before and after the

amendment, the legislature enacted the Disproportionality Review Act which allowed the

Arizona Board of Executive Clemency (the Board) to review sentences awarded before 1994

and recommend commutation to the governor if appropriate. Id. 

The Board reviewed Meeker’s sentences and recommended they be commuted as

follows: Counts 1 through 8 should be commuted from life to 13.75 years; Counts 9 and 10

should be commuted from life to 8 years. (Respondent’s Answer, p. 3.) The Board made no

recommendation concerning whether the counts should be served concurrently or consecutively.

Id.

The governor’s office purportedly rejected the recommendation. (Respondent’s Answer,

Exhibit 6, pp. 3-4.) This rejection, however, was procedurally inadequate and the commutation

became effective automatically. Id., Exhibit 6, p. 4; See also McDonald v. Thomas, 202 Ariz.

35, 46, 40 P.3d 819, 830 (2002).

Case 2:05-cv-01654-ROS Document 13 Filed 11/17/06 Page 2 of 5
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 -

The Arizona Department of Corrections recalculated Meeker’s sentence assuming Counts

1 through 8 were still to be served concurrently, Count 9 was still consecutive to Counts 1

through 8, and Count 10 was still consecutive to Count 9. (Respondent’s Answer, p. 3.) 

On May 3, 2002, Meeker filed a Habeas Corpus petition in the trial court arguing Counts

9 and 10 should run concurrently and, by applying good-time credits, he was entitled to

immediate release. (Respondent’s Answer, p. 4.) The trial court denied the petition ruling the

commutation changed the length of the sentences but not the manner in which they were to be

served. Id., p. 5. 

Meeker appealed, but the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court in a

memorandum decision. (Respondent’s Answer, Exhibit 6.) The court of appeals found the

Board made no recommendation as to how the new sentences should be served. Id., Exhibit 6,

pp. 7-8. Accordingly, the new sentences should be served in the same way as the original ones.

Id.; See, e.g., Galaz v. Stewart, 207 Ariz. 452, 454-55, 88 P.3d 166, 168-69 (2004) (The

commutation of the defendant’s sentences did not convert “flat time” sentences to “soft time”

sentences where the Board made no such recommendation.).

 Meeker petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court, but it denied review on May 25, 2004.

(Respondent’s Answer, p. 6.)

On June 2, 2005, Meeker filed the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant

to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2254. (Petition.) He asserts the Arizona Court of

Appeals erred in its decision upholding the Arizona Department of Correction’s sentencing

calculation which failed to run all of his sentences concurrently and failed to make him eligible

for “good-time” credits. Id.

In his answer, the respondent argues this claim was not exhausted and is now

procedurally defaulted. In the alternative, the respondent argues Meeker failed to raise a

Constitutional question subject to federal habeas review.

 

Case 2:05-cv-01654-ROS Document 13 Filed 11/17/06 Page 3 of 5
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 -

Discussion

The court does not reach the respondent’s procedural default argument. The petition may

be denied on the merits. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2); Franklin v. Johnson, 290 F.3d 1223,

1232 (9th Cir. 2002). It does not assert a cognizable claim.

The writ of habeas corpus affords relief to persons in custody in violation of the

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241. It does not provide a

remedy for alleged errors in the interpretation or application of state law. Id. 

In this case, Meeker argues the state incorrectly calculated his new sentences. This

failure, however, is at most an error of state law. The writ of habeas corpus is not available to

correct simple errors of state law. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991) (“[I]t is not

the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine state-court determinations on state-law

questions.”); Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990); Christian v. Rhode, 41 F.3d 461, 469

(9th Cir. 1994). To justify relief, Meeker must establish a violation of his federal rights, which

he has not done. 

A state court’s misapplication of its own sentencing laws (assuming there is one here)

does not violate due process thereby justifying federal habeas relief unless the petitioner can

show “fundamental unfairness.” Christian v. Rhode, 41 F.3d 461, 469 (9th Cir. 1994); See, e.g.,

Hicks v. Oklahoma, 447 U.S. 343, 346 (1980) (Sentencing pursuant to an unconstitutional

statute violates due process.); Murtishaw v. Woodford, 255 F.3d 926, 969 (9th Cir. 2001), cert.

denied, 535 U.S. 935 (2002) (Death sentence based on an inapplicable statute violates due

process.); United States v. Rapal, 146 F.3d 661, 663 (9th Cir. 1998) (Vindictive sentencing

violates due process.); United States v. Hanna, 49 F.3d 572, 576-77 (9th Cir. 1995) (Sentencing

based on materially false or unreliable information violates due process.); Marzano v.

Kincheloe, 915 F.2d 549, 552 (9th Cir. 1990) (A sentence unauthorized by law is

unconstitutional.). In this case, Meeker cannot show his consecutive ,“flat time” sentences are

fundamentally unfair. He cannot show, for example, that his sentences are illegal as a matter

of law or inapplicable to his particular offenses. See, e.g., Galaz v. Stewart, 207 Ariz. 452, 454,

88 P.3d 166, 168 (2004) (The statute under which Meeker was sentenced mandated “flat time”

Case 2:05-cv-01654-ROS Document 13 Filed 11/17/06 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

sentences both before and after amendment.). There is no federal due process violation. The

petition should be denied.

RECOMMENDATION

The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, after its independent review

of the record, enter an order DENYING the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. [#1]

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636 (b), any party may serve and file written objections within

10 days of being served with a copy of this report and recommendation. If objections are not

timely filed, they may be deemed waived. 

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this report and recommendation to the petitioner

and the respondent.

DATED this 17th day of November, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-01654-ROS Document 13 Filed 11/17/06 Page 5 of 5