Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02572/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02572-1/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NOT FOR PUBLICATION 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 

Anthony Lee Terranova, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-13-02572-PHX-SRB

ORDER 

 Petitioner Anthony Lee Terranova filed an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus on March 24, 2014 challenging his convictions and sentences in Maricopa 

County Superior Court for third-degree burglary and first-degree murder. The procedural 

history of the case is set out in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. 

 The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Petition be denied and dismissed with 

prejudice because the Petition was untimely, Petitioner was not entitled to equitable 

tolling, and Petitioner had not met the actual innocence standard. Petitioner filed timely 

written objections to the Report and Recommendation. Petitioner did not object to the 

Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that his petition for habeas relief was untimely and that he 

was not entitled to equitable tolling. Petitioner’s objections only address whether he has 

met the actual innocence standard. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that 

Petitioner did not. 

 The Magistrate Judge noted, and Petitioner does not dispute, that a claim of actual 

innocence requires that a petitioner show factual innocence, not legal insufficiency to 

Case 2:13-cv-02572-SRB Document 25 Filed 06/29/15 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

support the conviction. In review of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and the 

Objections, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Petitioner’s claim of actual 

innocence is not a claim of factual innocence but a claim of legal insufficiency. As the 

Magistrate Judge noted, Petitioner never said he did not kill the victim and only 

challenged the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. In his 

Objections Petitioner also does not deny shooting the victim but seems to be arguing that 

the shooting was somehow justified. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that 

Petitioner has presented no evidence of actual factual innocence. His arguments of legal 

innocence do not fall within the statute of limitations exception for actual innocence. 

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

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge as the Order of this Court. (Doc. 21) 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

is denied and dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 1) 

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

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because dismissal of the Petition is justified by a 

plain procedural bar and jurist of reason would not find the ruling debatable. 

 Dated this 29th day of June, 2015. 

Case 2:13-cv-02572-SRB Document 25 Filed 06/29/15 Page 2 of 2