Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01310/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01310-1/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 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Jeremy Dean Garcia, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al. 

Respondents.

No. CV-12-01310-PHX-SRB

ORDER 

 Petitioner Jeremy Dean Garcia filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on 

June 12, 2012 raising six grounds for relief. Petitioner claims: 1) there was insufficient 

evidence to support his conviction on several counts; 2) trial counsel was ineffective 

because she pressured him not to testify at trial; 3) trial counsel was ineffective because 

she failed to call character witnesses on Petitioner’s behalf; 4) trial counsel was 

ineffective because she failed to request a Willits instruction; 5) the trial court erred in 

sentencing defendant pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-604.01; and 6) trial and appellate counsel 

were both ineffective because they failed to challenge his sentences and appellate counsel 

was also ineffective by failing to raise Petitioner’s claim regarding his desire to testify at 

trial. Respondents filed a limited answer asserting that Petitioner’s claims were 

procedurally defaulted and barred from federal habeas corpus review or were not 

cognizable on federal habeas corpus review. Petitioner’s reply argued that if there were a 

procedural fault there was cause to excuse it. 

Case 2:12-cv-01310-SRB Document 21 Filed 08/29/13 Page 1 of 7
- 2 - 

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 

 On July 16, 2013, the Magistrate Judge filed her Report and Recommendation 

recommending that the Petition be denied and further recommending that a certificate of 

appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be denied. Petitioner filed 

timely written objections on August 2, 1013. 

Ground I – Sufficiency of the Evidence 

 The Magistrate Judge concluded that Petitioner’s request for federal habeas 

corpus review based on sufficiency of the evidence should be denied because Petitioner’s 

sufficiency of the evidence claim was based only on state law grounds and federal habeas 

corpus relief is not available for alleged violations of state law or for alleged error in the 

interpretation of state law. Petitioner’s objection to the Magistrate Judge’s 

recommendation on Ground I is that it is his position that his conviction and detention 

were “based upon acts not legislatively delineated as to give notice of their prohibition is 

violative of due process under both federal and state analysis, must be subject to review 

by the federal courts.” (Doc. 20, Pet’r’s Objections to the Proposed Findings and 

Recommendations (“Pet’r’s Objection”) at 2). 

 Petitioner’s objection will be overruled. Petitioner presented this state law claim 

on appeal and based his claim only on state law grounds. His habeas petition also based 

his sufficiency of the evidence claim only on state law grounds. For the first time in his 

objections Petitioner states his position that Arizona state law did not give him sufficient 

notice that the acts for which he was convicted were prohibited and his opinion that that 

is a federal due process violation. In addition to stating no authority for his opinion, the 

basis for the denial of habeas relief on Ground I, as noted by the Magistrate Judge, was 

that Petitioner presented this as a state law claim on appeal and in his habeas petition. 

Even if his opinion were supported by any authority, Petitioner cannot raise a federal 

claim for the first time in his objections. 

Ground II - Ineffective Assistance of Counsel 

 Petitioner raised this claim in state court on post-conviction review. The trial court 

found that his claim that his lawyer applied overbearing pressure to prevent him from 

Case 2:12-cv-01310-SRB Document 21 Filed 08/29/13 Page 2 of 7
- 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 

testifying at trial was not supported by the trial transcript. Instead, the trial transcript 

showed that the trial judge had reviewed with Petitioner his right to testify and advised 

Petitioner that it was Petitioner’s decision whether to testify and not his counsel’s. 

Petitioner advised the court that he did not wish to testify. On this basis the state court 

rejected this claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Magistrate Judge also noted 

that the appellate court in affirming the trial court found that Petitioner failed to explain 

how his counsel prevented him from testifying and Petitioner provided no information 

about how he would have testified at trial. The appellate court concluded that Petitioner 

had not established that but for counsel’s deficient performance there was a reasonable 

probability that the outcome of his trial would have been different. 

 The Magistrate Judge observed that Petitioner did not challenge the state court’s 

conclusion about the trial transcript reflecting that he waived his right to testify after a 

discussion with the trial judge. Petitioner also failed to provide any specific information 

in his Petition regarding the substance of the testimony he would have given at trial. The 

Magistrate Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to show that the state court’s decision 

on post-conviction relief was contrary to clearly established law, based on an 

unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, or based on an unreasonable 

determination of the facts considering the evidence presented in the state court 

proceeding. 

 In his Objection to the recommendation for denial of relief on Ground II, 

Petitioner states only that his testimony was vital to his defense and without such 

testimony “to contravene the state’s version of events was fatal to said defense thereby 

rendering his assistance of counsel ineffective.” (Id. at 2). He argues that the Court 

should infer that his testimony at trial would have been that the accusations against him 

were fabricated. While this Court may conclude that generally Petitioner would have 

denied the allegations against him, Petitioner still fails to show that he was prejudiced as 

a result of counsel’s allegedly deficient performance or fails to show that the findings of 

the state court were based on an unreasonable determination of the facts considering the 

Case 2:12-cv-01310-SRB Document 21 Filed 08/29/13 Page 3 of 7
- 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 

evidence presented. Petitioner’s objection to the recommendations with respect to 

Ground II is overruled. 

Ground III – Ineffective Assistance of Counsel 

 The ineffective assistance of counsel claim in Ground III is that trial counsel was 

ineffective because she failed to present several unidentified character witnesses on 

Petitioner’s behalf. This was noted on post-conviction review when the state court found 

that by failing to specify how the character witnesses would have testified Petitioner 

failed to show that but for counsel’s alleged deficient performance there was a reasonable 

likelihood that the outcome of the trial would have been different. 

 The Magistrate Judge concluded that Petitioner had not shown that the state 

court’s resolution of this claim was contrary to or an unreasonable application of 

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Strickland requires that Petitioner show 

that counsel’s performance was objectively deficient and that counsel’s deficient 

performance prejudiced the Petitioner. In his Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s 

recommendation for denial of relief on Ground III, Petitioner states that the character 

witnesses were to send sworn statements to the court under separate cover. He also states 

that Petitioner’s understanding was that all these witnesses were willing and able to 

testify as to his good character. But Petitioner knew, based on the state court’s resolution 

this claim, that there were no sworn statements sent to the court under separate cover in 

support of his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. 

 This Court’s review on a federal habeas petition requires Petitioner to show that 

the state court’s rejection of his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was contrary to 

clearly established federal law, was based on an unreasonable application of clearly 

established federal law, or was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts 

considering the evidence presented in state court. Petitioner has not met that standard 

here. His objections to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation for denial of federal 

habeas relief on Ground III are overruled. 

Case 2:12-cv-01310-SRB Document 21 Filed 08/29/13 Page 4 of 7
- 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 

Ground IV – Ineffective Assistance of Counsel 

 On Ground IV the Magistrate Judge recommended the denial of federal habeas 

relief for the same reasons as in Grounds II and III. The Magistrate Judge noted that 

when this claim was presented to the state court on post-conviction relief the state court 

found that Petitioner was not entitled to a Willits instruction and therefore, trial counsel 

had not been ineffective for failing to request one or for not objecting to the trial court’s 

failure to give one. The Magistrate Judge concluded that Petitioner has not shown that 

the state court’s rejection of this claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was contrary to 

clearly established federal law, was based on an unreasonable application of clearly 

established federal law, or was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts 

considering the evidence presented in state court. 

 In his objections, Petitioner states only the following, “As to ground four, the 

Willits instruction petitioner asserts that this ground is both cognizable and appropriate 

for relief under a federal analysis.” (Id. at 3). Petitioner states nothing more with respect 

to his objection. This is not a specific written objection that shows how the Magistrate 

Judge erred either in her interpretation of the facts upon which the habeas petition is 

based or the applicable law. Petitioner’s objection is overruled. 

Ground V- Improper Sentence 

 Petitioner raised no objection to the recommendation for the denial of habeas relief 

as to Ground V. 

Ground VI- Ineffective Assistance of Counsel 

 In Ground VI, Petitioner argued ineffective assistance of both trial and appellate 

counsel in failing to challenge Petitioner’s sentence and his appellate counsel for failing 

to raise the claim relating to his being pressured not to testify. As noted by the Magistrate 

Judge, on post-conviction relief the state court reviewed the claim that Petitioner should 

have been sentenced under different Arizona statutes than the statute under which he was 

sentenced and found Petitioner’s argument without merit. The state court found that the 

trial court properly sentenced Petitioner, and therefore, trial and appellate counsel were 

Case 2:12-cv-01310-SRB Document 21 Filed 08/29/13 Page 5 of 7
- 6 - 

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 

not ineffective for failing to challenge his sentence. 

 The habeas petition contained only a single sentence with respect to this claim. 

Petitioner said, “both trial and appellate counsel should have briefed and argued the 

unconstitutionality of the matter in which defendant was sentenced.” (Doc. 1, Pet’r’s Pet 

for Writ of Habeas Corpus at 12) The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that this 

conclusory assertion is not sufficient to show that the state court’s decision was contrary 

to clearly established federal law, was based on an unreasonable application of clearly 

established federal law, or was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts 

considering the evidence presented in the state court. 

 The other claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in Ground VI is that appellate 

counsel failed to raise the claim about Petitioner being pressured not to testify. The 

Magistrate Judge found that Petitioner did not exhaust available state remedies with 

respect to this claim, that any return to state court on this claim would be futile, and 

therefore, the claim is barred from federal habeas review unless Petitioner could show 

cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice to overcome the procedural 

bar. The Magistrate Judge concluded that Petitioner has failed to do this. 

 Petitioner’s Objection to the Magistrate Judge Report and Recommendation on 

Ground VI is again only a single sentence. Petitioner says, “As to ground six, it is a 

federal claim that both trial and appellate counsel were ineffective and worthy of the 

court’s review and relief.” (Pet’r’s Objection at 3) This objection fails to show that the 

Magistrate Judge erred in her recommendation concerning the procedural bar of the claim 

of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel with respect to Petitioner wanting to testify 

and her recommendation on the merits of the ineffective assistance of trial and appellate 

counsel claim regarding his sentencing under Arizona law. Petitioner’s Objection to the 

Report and Recommendation as to Ground VI is overruled. 

 IT IS ORDERD overruling Petitioner’s Objections to the Report and 

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 

Case 2:12-cv-01310-SRB Document 21 Filed 08/29/13 Page 6 of 7
- 7 - 

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 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge as the Order of this Court. 

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

denied. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied because denial of the petition is justified 

by a plain procedural bar and reasonable jurists would not find the procedural ruling 

debatable and because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right. 

Dated this 29th day of August, 2013. 

Case 2:12-cv-01310-SRB Document 21 Filed 08/29/13 Page 7 of 7