Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08064/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08064-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John Anthony Zurawski, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-8064-PCT-EHC (MEA)

 

ORDER

On July 26, 2007, Petitioner, while proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus By a Person in State Custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Dkt. 1). The matter

was referred to Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey (Dkt. 3). On November 20, 2007,

Respondents filed an Answer to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. 9). On January

23, 2008, counsel filed a notice of appearance on behalf of Petitioner (Dkt. 13). Petitioner

through counsel filed a Motion for Leave to Amend the Habeas Petition (Dkt. 20). On May

7, 2008, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the

§ 2254 Petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice and that Petitioner’s motion to amend

his Petition be denied (Dkt. 24). Petitioner has not filed an Objection to the Report and

Recommendation. 

//

//

Case 3:07-cv-08064-EHC Document 25 Filed 06/23/08 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 -

 Standard of Review

The district court reviews de novo the portions of the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation to which Petitioner has filed an objection. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)("a

judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report, ..., to

which objection is made."); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th

Cir. 2003); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219 (D. Ariz. 2003), citing Thomas v.

Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985)(determining that district courts are not required to review any

issue that is not the subject of an objection). 

Discussion

On July 20, 2001, Petitioner, represented by counsel and pursuant to a written plea

agreement, pleaded guilty to two counts of armed robbery, stalking and kidnapping in

Yavapai County Superior Court. Petitioner was sentenced to consecutive, aggravated 14-

year prison terms on the two armed robbery convictions, to a consecutive sentence of oneand-one-half years imprisonment for the stalking conviction, and to a concurrent aggravated

term of seven years on the kidnapping conviction. Petitioner also was sentenced to one day

of community service for each seven days served in prison.

Petitioner, represented by counsel, filed a timely action for post-conviction relief

which was denied in the state trial and appellate courts. Petitioner proceeding pro se filed

two subsequent state actions for post-conviction relief. In the second such action, Petitioner

asserted, among other claims, that post-conviction counsel, referred to as appellate counsel,

had provided ineffective assistance. The state trial court found that Petitioner had failed to

establish a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The petition was otherwise

dismissed because Petitioner had failed to raise the claims in his first action for postconviction relief. Petitioner’s third action for post-conviction relief was denied.

In his federal habeas petition, Petitioner has alleged that the state trial court violated

his right to due process by sentencing him to more time than provided under his plea

agreement and for sentencing him for a crime not agreed upon in his plea agreement.

Case 3:07-cv-08064-EHC Document 25 Filed 06/23/08 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 -

Petitioner further alleges a violation of his right to the effective assistance of appellate and

trial counsel.

The Magistrate Judge has indicated in his Report and Recommendation that Petitioner

properly exhausted only his claim alleging denial of his right to effective assistance of postconviction counsel. It is recommended that this claim be denied because the Arizona courts’

conclusion that Petitioner was not denied any such right was not clearly contrary to federal

law since counsel’s performance was not deficient and Petitioner failed to show resulting

prejudice. The Magistrate Judge has recommended that Petitioner’s other claims for federal

habeas relief were procedurally defaulted in the state courts and Petitioner has not shown

cause for, or prejudice arising from, the procedural default of these claims. It is

recommended that Petitioner should not be allowed to amend his federal habeas petition

because the proposed Amended Petition lodged April 10, 2008 does not state meritorious

claims for relief or add legal support for granting relief on the merits of the claims presented.

In the absence of an Objection, the Court adopts in full the Report and

Recommendation.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt.

24) is adopted in full.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Amend Habeas

Corpus Petition (Dkt. 20) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (Dkt. 1) is denied and dismissed with prejudice.

DATED this 23rd day of June, 2008.

Case 3:07-cv-08064-EHC Document 25 Filed 06/23/08 Page 3 of 3