Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00499/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00499-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Andrew Dominguez, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-0499-PHX-DGC (BPV)

ORDER

Andrew Dominguez is serving an eleven year sentence in state prison for theft of

means of transportation. Doc. 1. He commenced this action by filing a petition for writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Id. On July 6, 2010, United States Magistrate

Judge Bernardo Velasco issued a report and recommendation (R&R) that the petition be

denied. Doc. 34. Petitioner has filed an objection to the R&R. Doc. 35. For reasons that

follow, the Court will accept the R&R and deny the petition.

I. The R&R and Objections.

The petition asserts two grounds for relief. In Ground I, Petitioner alleges that counsel

rendered ineffective assistance by failing to investigate his mental condition and that, as a

consequence, Petitioner was incompetent at trial and during plea negotiations. In Ground II,

Petitioner alleges counsel’s ineffective assistance deprived him of his Sixth and Fourteenth

Amendment rights to a fair trial. Doc. 1. Judge Velasco determined that although Petitioner

raises two grounds for relief, “they are essentially one claim for ineffective assistance of

counsel.” Doc. 34 at 13. Judge Velasco found that the ineffective assistance of counsel

Case 2:08-cv-00499-DGC Document 37 Filed 10/06/10 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 -

claim fails because Petitioner has not established that counsel’s performance was deficient.

Id. at 18. 

The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court must

undertake de novo review of those portions of the R&R to which specific objections are

made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Where the state court decided the merits of the claim

without providing its rationale, the federal court must independently review the record to

assess whether the state court decision was objectively unreasonable under controlling

federal law. Himes v. Thompson, 336 F.3d 848, 853 (9th Cir. 2003); Pirtle v. Morgan, 313

F.3d 1160, 1167 (9th Cir. 2002); Delgado v. Lewis, 223 F.3d 976, 981-82 (9th Cir. 2000).

Because neither the trial court, nor the court of appeals, provided a reasoned decision for

rejecting Petitioner’s claim, this Court will independently review the record to assess whether

the state court decision was objectively unreasonable under controlling federal law, with

deference given to the state court’s ultimate decision. Himes, 336 F.3d at 853; Pirtle, 313

F.3d at 1167.

Petitioner makes two specific objections to the R&R. Doc. 35 at 4-6. The Court will

address each objection below.

II. Analysis.

Petitioner first objects to Judge Velasco’s finding that Petitioner’s trial counsel

diligently pursued an investigation into Petitioner’s mental health. Petitioner asserts that this

finding is not supported by the evidence. Doc. 35 at 5. He maintains that his attorney’s

failure to secure further evaluation for Petitioner was “plainly deficient,” even under the

heavy deference afforded by Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). 

In Strickland, the Supreme Court established a two-prong test to evaluate ineffective

assistance claims. Id. The defendant must show that his attorney’s performance fell below

an objective standard of reasonableness and resulting prejudice. Id. at 687-88. To meet

Strickland’s performance standard, “[t]rial counsel has a duty to investigate a defendant’s

Case 2:08-cv-00499-DGC Document 37 Filed 10/06/10 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 -

mental state if there is evidence to suggest that the defendant is impaired.” Douglas v.

Woodford, 316 F.3d 1079, 1085 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Bean v. Calderon, 164 F.3d 1073,

1077 (9th Cir. 1998)). 

The record reflects the following series of events. Counsel represented Petitioner in

an earlier criminal case. During that representation, Petitioner informed counsel that he was

a client at Value Options. Doc. 28-1 at 2. Counsel requested Petitioner’s medical records

from Value Options and was told that Petitioner was not a client there. Doc. 38-1 at 8.

Counsel sent Petitioner for a psychological evaluation. Doc. 27-1 at 4. The doctor who

performed the evaluation determined that Petitioner was malingering and had “no credible

mental illness, defect or disability.” Id. at 4-5. Despite this, counsel requested a full

competency evaluation, which the court in the earlier action denied on May 3, 2004. Id. at

23-24. 

Eight days later, Petitioner committed the crime for which he stands convicted in this

case. His counsel from the previous case represented him in this case. A settlement

conference for this case was held five months later. After the settlement conference, counsel

requested Petitioner’s mental health records from the Department of Corrections. Id. at 9.

Petitioner’s DOC health records state that no mental problems were evident. Id. at 11-20.

Moreover, nothing in the trial transcript or counsel’s records indicate Petitioner was

incompetent. 

Counsel investigated Petitioner’s incompetence through several steps – requesting

records from Value Options, obtaining a psychological evaluation, seeking a full competency

evaluation, and requesting Petitioner’s DOC health records. Counsel did not find any

evidence suggesting Petitioner was incompetent during these investigations. In fact, counsel

continued investigating despite being presented with evidence that Petitioner was

malingering symptoms of mental illness and evidence that Petitioner was lying to her. Based

on these facts, the Court cannot conclude that counsel’s performance fell below an objective

standard of reasonableness. Consequently, the Court cannot conclude that the state court’s

Case 2:08-cv-00499-DGC Document 37 Filed 10/06/10 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 -

decision to deny the petition was objectively unreasonable under Strickland. Petitioner’s first

objection is without merit.

Petitioner further objects to Judge Velasco’s finding that the merits of Petitioner’s

claims can be decided without further evidentiary development. Doc. 35 at 5-6. Petitioner

argues that he is “entitled to an evidentiary hearing and the opportunity to testify at the

hearing and cross-examine his former counsel under oath in open court as to her deficient

performance.” Doc. 35 at 5. The Court disagrees.

Petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if (1) he has not failed to develop the

factual basis of the claim in the state courts, (2) he meets one of the Townsend factors, and

(3) he makes colorable allegations that, if proved at an evidentiary hearing, would entitle him

to habeas relief. Insyxiengmay v. Morgan, 403 F.3d 657, 670-71 (9th Cir. 2005). Petitioner

is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing, however, if the claim can be resolved by reference

to the state court record and documentary evidence. Totten v. Merkle, 137 F.3d 1172, 1176

(9th Cir. 1998); see Griffey v. Lindsey, 345 F.3d 1058, 1067 (9th Cir. 2003).

A review of the evidentiary record details Petitioner’s counsel’s performance and

allows this Court to resolve Petitioner’s claims without an evidentiary hearing. The record

shows counsel tried to substantiate Petitioner’s incompetence on several occasions, found no

evidence that Petitioner was incompetent, but did find evidence that Petitioner was

malingering. These facts considered, this Court does not find that the state court acted

unreasonably in determining that no evidentiary hearing was required, and finds that

Petitioner’s claim may be resolved by reference to the record. Petitioner’s second objection

to the R&R is without merit. Accordingly, the Court will accept the R&R and deny the

petition.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Doc. 34) is accepted.

Case 2:08-cv-00499-DGC Document 37 Filed 10/06/10 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 -

2. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is denied.

DATED this 5th day of October, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-00499-DGC Document 37 Filed 10/06/10 Page 5 of 5