Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_97-cv-01249/USCOURTS-azd-2_97-cv-01249-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

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

 Charles L. Ryan is the Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections. He is

being substituted as the Respondent pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d)(1).

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Rudi Alfred Apelt, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,1

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-97-01249-PHX-ROS

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

For the reasons that follow, the Court orders Petitioner to show cause why the stay of

his sentencing claims should not be lifted, the claims dismissed, and judgment entered.

In 1997, Petitioner initiated this habeas proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The next

year he filed an amended habeas petition raising twenty-three claims challenging his state

court conviction and capital sentence. (Doc. 39.) In 2000, the Court determined the

procedural status of Petitioner’s claims, concluding that some were procedurally barred and

some entitled to merits review. (Doc. 71.) In 2002, following the Supreme Court’s decision

in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), this Court stayed Petitioner’s sentencing-related

claims pending successive state post-conviction proceedings based on Petitioner’s alleged

mental retardation and ineligibility for the death penalty. (Docs. 147, 149, 151.) While state

proceedings were ongoing, the Court ruled on Petitioner’s conviction-related claims,

concluding that he was not entitled to habeas relief. (Doc. 190.) 

Case 2:97-cv-01249-ROS Document 214 Filed 05/23/11 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Subsequently, the state court determined that Petitioner was mentally retarded, vacated

his death sentence, and resentenced him to life imprisonment, thus rendering moot

Petitioner’s pending sentencing-related habeas claims. Petitioner appealed his resentencing,

but it was affirmed. State v. Apelt, No. 2 CA-CR-2009-0256, 2010 WL 3528887 at *1 (Ariz.

App. Div. 2, Sept. 10, 2010). According to Petitioner’s April 2011 status report, the state

appellate court issued its mandate on January 10, 2011. (Doc. 213.) Under Rule 32.4(a) of

the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, Petitioner had thirty days from the issuance of the

mandate to file a notice for post-conviction relief. It thus appears, based on the lack of

reference to any impending state post-conviction proceedings in the April status report, that

state court proceedings are concluded.

Even if state proceedings relating to Petitioner’s resentencing were still ongoing, the

Court can discern no basis for maintaining the stay in this case or further postponing issuance

of judgment. As already noted, the Court has ruled on all of Petitioner’s conviction-related

claims and his original sentencing claims became moot when the state court vacated his

capital sentence. Moreover, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in Magwood v.

Patterson, 130 S. Ct. 2788 (2010), Petitioner is not precluded from challenging his

resentencing in a new habeas petition.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that no later than fifteen (15) days after the filing date of this Order,

Petitioner shall show cause in writing why the stay of his sentencing claims should not be

lifted, the claims dismissed as moot, and judgment entered. Unless otherwise directed by the

Court, Respondents shall not file a response.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall update the title of this case

to reflect the substitution of Charles L. Ryan as the Director of the Arizona Department of

Corrections. 

DATED this 20th day of May, 2011.

Case 2:97-cv-01249-ROS Document 214 Filed 05/23/11 Page 2 of 2