Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00955/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00955-1/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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert Gonzales Robin, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-0955-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (doc. 1), respondents’ response (doc. 11), and petitioner’s reply (doc. 14). We

also have before us the report and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge

recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied (doc. 15), and petitioner’s

objection (doc. 16). After de novo consideration of the issues, we accept the recommended

decision of the Magistrate Judge pursuant to Rule 8(b), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases.

Petitioner pled guilty to second-degree murder and was sentenced to between 75 years

to 75 years and 1 day imprisonment, commencing March 14, 1974. Petitioner escaped from

the Arizona Department of Corrections on November 6, 1983 and remained at large for

nearly 12 years until his capture on October 13, 1995. At the time of his escape, petitioner

was scheduled for release in 2005. After his return to custody, the Arizona Department of

Corrections recalculated his release date as July 11, 2017. Petitioner now contends that he

Case 2:09-cv-00955-FJM Document 17 Filed 01/25/10 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

1

Petitioner has conceded that his Sixth Amendment claim is without merit. See

Objection at 6.

- 2 -

is being held illegally beyond his original release date because the State extended his

sentence without providing him meaningful access to the courts, and without affording him

notice and a hearing as required by the Due Process Clause. 

While petitioner’s absence does not itself establish criminal culpability, it certainly

establishes an interruption in service of his sentence. See Anderson v. Corall, 263 U.S. 193,

196, 44 S. Ct. 43, 44 (1923) (stating that time spent on escape does not constitute service of

sentence). An interruption in service of sentence, in turn, supports an adjustment to the

release date to reflect the time petitioner was absent. The recalculation of petitioner’s

sentence was not a punitive measure based on a finding of criminal culpability. It did not

increase the severity of his original sentence. Instead, it was an administrative recalculation

of his release date to reflect the number of days he was absent from custody. It violated

neither his right of access to the courts nor his due process rights.1

Therefore, we accept the report and recommendation of the United States Magistrate

Judge (doc. 15). IT IS ORDERED DENYING petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas

corpus (doc. 1). Because petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING a Certificate of

Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. 

DATED this 25th day of January, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-00955-FJM Document 17 Filed 01/25/10 Page 2 of 2