Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00022/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00022-0/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 

Jason Wayne Warwick, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-14-0022-PHX-SRB (DKD)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO THE HONORABLE SUSAN R. BOLTON, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE: 

 Jason Wayne Warwick filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on January 6, 

2014, challenging his convictions in Maricopa County Superior Court for multiple 

felonies arising out of a murder. His habeas petition raises various arguments about his 

trial counsel, the State’s evidence at trial, and the trial court’s rulings and sentencing; he 

does not argue actual innocence. Respondents contend that Warwick’s petition should be 

denied as untimely. As explained below, the Court recommends that Warwick’s petition 

be denied and dismissed with prejudice. 

BACKGROUND

On February 26, 1998, at the conclusion of a nine-day trial in the Maricopa 

County Superior Court, a jury found Warwick guilty of three felonies arising out of the 

murder of Lewis Tom Whitehill: conspiracy to commit first degree murder; first degree 

murder, both premeditated murder and felony murder; and burglary, a dangerous offense. 

Case 2:14-cv-00022-SRB Document 15 Filed 04/15/15 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 

(Doc. 10, Exs. L, LL)1 On April 6, 2001, at the conclusion of a two-day 

aggravation/mitigation hearing, the Court issued a special verdict. (Doc. 10, Exs. M, Z) 

On April 6, 2001, the court sentenced Warwick to a mitigated sentence of life 

without release on any basis until 25 years have been served for the charge of conspiracy 

to commit first degree murder; a mitigated sentence of life without parole for the charge 

of first degree murder; and an aggravated sentence of 17 years for the charge of burglary, 

with all sentences to run concurrently. (Doc. 10, Exs. BB, PPP) 

Warwick timely appealed arguing prosecutorial misconduct, trial court error 

stemming from three different evidentiary rulings, and the constitutional insufficiency of 

the reasonable doubt jury instruction. (Doc. 10, Exs. CC, DD, EE, FF) The Court of 

Appeals affirmed his convictions and sentences. (Doc. 10, Exs. GG, SSS) Warwick 

timely petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court for review. (Doc. 10, Ex. HH) On October 

28, 2003, the Arizona Supreme Court denied his petition for review. (Doc. 10, Exs. II, 

TTT) Warwick did not file a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme 

Court. 

On November 10, 2003, Warwick filed a Notice of Post-Conviction Relief in 

Maricopa County Superior Court.2

 (Doc. 10, Ex. JJ) The Superior Court appointed 

counsel who, on April 2, 2004, notified the Court that he could not find any claims to 

raise in post-conviction relief proceedings. (Doc. 10, Exs. KK, LL, MM) The Superior 

Court set an extended briefing deadline so that Warwick could file a pro per Rule 32 

petition. (Doc. 10, Ex. NN) Warwick did not file any petition before the Superior 

 

1

 Warwick, through counsel, timely moved for a new trial. (Doc. 10, Exs. N, OO) Following briefing, the Superior Court granted the new trial and then denied the State’s 

request for reconsideration. (Doc. 10, Exs. P, Q, R, S) The Arizona Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, and the Arizona Supreme Court denied Warwick’s petition for review. (Doc 10, Exs. T, U, V, W, RRR) 

2

 Warwick signed the Notice on November 10, 2003, he signed the attached Affidavit of Indigency on November 20, 2003, and the Notice was filed in Maricopa County Superior Court on December 2, 2003. (Doc 10, Ex. JJ at 1, 3, 4) The Superior Court acted as though his Notice was timely filed and Respondents assume that it was, 

too. (Doc. 10 at 8, Ex. KK) See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270-74 (1988); State v. 

Rosario, 195 Ariz. 264, 987 P.2d 226 (App. 1999). Because this date is not dispositive to the recommendation in this matter, this Court will also assume that his Notice was timely. 

Case 2:14-cv-00022-SRB Document 15 Filed 04/15/15 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 

Court’s May 24, 2004 deadline; on June 7, 2004, the Superior Court dismissed 

Warwick’s Rule 32 proceeding. (Doc 10, Ex. OO) 

Successive Rule 32 Petitions. In November 2007 – over three years after the 

Superior Court dismissed his Rule 32 proceeding – Warwick filed a Notice of PostConviction Relief in Maricopa County Superior Court arguing ineffective assistance of 

trial, appellate, and post-conviction counsel. (Doc. 10, Ex. PP) On January 8, 2008, the 

Court dismissed his Notice because Warwick’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim 

should have been raised in his first Rule 32 petition and could not be raised in an 

untimely Rule 32 proceeding. (Doc. 10, Ex. QQ) Warwick moved for reconsideration 

and the Superior Court denied his motion. (Doc. 10, Exs. RR, SS) Warwick then filed 

two additional motions and, in June 2008, the Superior Court denied them both. (Doc. 

10, Exs. TT, UU, VV) 

In March 2012 – over four years after the Superior Court dismissed his previous 

Notice – Warwick filed two Notices of Post-Conviction Relief arguing that significant 

changes in the law would probably alter the outcome of his convictions or sentences, if 

they were applied to him. (Doc. 10, Exs. WW, XX) On April 9, 2012, the Court 

dismissed his Notice because he failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted in 

an untimely Rule 32 proceeding. (Doc 10, Ex. ZZ) Specifically, the Court found that 

Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), did not apply to Warwick because he had not been 

sentenced to death. (Id.) The Court found that Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 

(2004), did not apply to Warwick because his convictions were final before Blakely was 

decided and Blakely does not apply retroactively. (Id.) The Court also found that State v. 

Donald, 198 Ariz. 406, 10 P.3d 1193 (App. 2000) (defense counsel required to provide 

effective assistance when advising a defendant to accept or reject a plea offer); State v. 

Thompson, 204 Ariz. 471, 65 P.3d 420 (Ariz. 2003) (“state may use all the circumstantial 

evidence at its disposal in a case to prove premeditation” in a first degree murder case); 

and State v. Dann, 205 Ariz. 557, 565, 74 P.3d 231, 239 supplemented, 206 Ariz. 371, 79 

P.3d 58 (2003) (jury instruction on premeditation should reflect state’s burden to show 

Case 2:14-cv-00022-SRB Document 15 Filed 04/15/15 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 

actual reflection by defendant), were not significant changes in the law. (Id.) Finally, the 

Court found that any claim under State v. Donald could not be raised for the first time in 

an untimely or successive Rule 32 petition. (Id.) Warwick’s petition to the Arizona 

Court of Appeals for review was denied on August 8, 2013. (Doc. 10, Exs. AAA, BBB, 

CCC) 

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. On January 6, 2014, Warwick filed3

 a 

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this Court. (Doc. 1) His Petition argues that his 

trial counsel provided ineffective assistance during plea negotiations and by conducting 

an inadequate pre-trial investigation, his aggravated sentence should have been imposed 

by a jury, the State did not prove every element of the charged crimes beyond a 

reasonable doubt, and the trial court should have excused a juror for cause but did not. 

(Doc. 1) Respondents contend that Warwick’s Petition is untimely and that he is not 

entitled to equitable tolling. (Doc. 10 at 12) The Court agrees and recommends that the 

Petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. 

Warwick’s Petition for Habeas Relief is Untimely. 

 A state prisoner seeking federal habeas relief from a state court conviction is 

required to file the petition within one year of “the date on which the judgment became 

final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such 

review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). The period of limitations is statutorily tolled during 

the time in which a “properly filed application for State post-conviction or other 

collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending” in the State 

courts. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). 

On October 28, 2003, the Arizona Supreme Court denied Warwick’s petition for 

review. Accordingly, his conviction became final on January 26, 2004, when the time 

period for filing a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court 

expired. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 641, 653-54 (2012). However, on 

 

3

 Warwick signed his Petition on January 2, 2014. (Doc. 1 at 12) The difference 

between the signature date and the filing date is immaterial here. 

Case 2:14-cv-00022-SRB Document 15 Filed 04/15/15 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 

November 10, 2003, Warwick timely filed a Notice for Post-Conviction Relief which 

initiated a tolling period. Isley v. Arizona Dep’t. of Corrections, 383 F.3d 1054, 1056 (9th

Cir. 2004) (tolling starts on the date that a Notice is filed under Rule 32 for purposes of 

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2)). But he never filed a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief and the 

Maricopa County Superior Court dismissed his incomplete post-conviction relief 

proceedings on June 7, 2004. At this point, the tolling period ended and his one year 

timeframe for filing a habeas petition in this Court began. Hemmerle v. Schriro, 495 F.3d 

1069, 1074 (9th Cir. 2007) (a “properly filed” first PCR notice tolled AEDPA’s one-year 

statute of limitations until it was summarily dismissed because no petition had been 

filed). 

For over three years after the Superior Court dismissed his incomplete postconviction relief proceedings, Warwick did not have any proceedings pending in the 

State courts or in this Court. Accordingly, his one year timeframe expired and, once 

expired, it could not be revived by subsequent filings. Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 

408, 413 (2005) (no AEDPA tolling from untimely state post-conviction petitions); 

Ferguson v. Palmateer, 321 F.3d 820, 823 (9th Cir. 2003) (“section 2244(d) does not 

permit the reinitiation of the limitations period that has ended before the state petition 

was filed”). Thus, Warwick’s petition is untimely. 

Warwick is Not Entitled to Equitable Tolling. 

Warwick’s petition should be denied as untimely unless he can show that he is 

entitled to equitable tolling. To make such a showing, Warwick must demonstrate both 

that he pursued his rights diligently and that some extraordinary circumstance prevented 

him from filing his petitions. Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649 (2010) (quoting 

Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005)). 

 Warwick acknowledges that he filed Notices for Post-Conviction relief in March 

2012. (Doc. 13 at 2) However, he never attempts to explain why he failed to file any 

petition for post-conviction relief in 2004, why he waited over three years between filing 

his first and second post-conviction petitions, or why he waited over nine years between 

Case 2:14-cv-00022-SRB Document 15 Filed 04/15/15 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 

the dismissal of his first post-conviction petition and the filing of his habeas petition in 

this Court. Instead, he seems to argue that Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S.Ct. 1309 (2012),

entitles him to file an untimely petition. (Doc. 13 at 2) However, Martinez does not 

address the limitations bar in Section 2244(d)(2) and it does not excuse an untimely 

habeas petition. E.g., Madueno v. Ryan, 2014 WL 2094189, at *7 (D. Ariz. May 20, 

2014); Marshall v. Ryan, 2014 WL 710954, at *5 (D. Ariz. Feb. 25, 2014); Moreno v. 

Ryan, 2014 WL 24151, at *5 (D. Ariz. Jan. 2, 2014). 

 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Jason Wayne Warwick’s Petition 

for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied and dismissed with prejudice. 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a Certificate of Appealability and 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be denied because dismissal of the Petition 

is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the ruling 

debatable. 

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules 

of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. 

The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this 

recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, 

the parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure 

timely to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation may 

result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the district court without 

further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 

. . . 

. . . 

. . . 

Case 2:14-cv-00022-SRB Document 15 Filed 04/15/15 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 

 Failure timely to file objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge 

will be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the findings of fact in 

an order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See

Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

 Dated this 15th day of April, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-00022-SRB Document 15 Filed 04/15/15 Page 7 of 7