Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_06-cv-00872/USCOURTS-azd-3_06-cv-00872-0/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

Rudolpho Guerrero, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CIV 06-872 EHC PCT (VAM)

)

Dora B. Schriro, et al., ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

)

 Respondents. )

TO THE HONORABLE EARL H. CARROLL, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.

Rudolpho Guerrero ("petitioner") filed a pro se Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner

raises four grounds for relief in the petition. (Doc. 1 at pp. 5-

8 and Attached Pages). Respondents filed an answer opposing the

granting of habeas relief. (Doc. 8).

A. BACKGROUND

Petitioner pleaded guilty to one count of second degree

murder and one count of aggravated assault in June, 1991. (Doc. 8

at Exhibits A, B and C). As a result of the guilty pleas,

petitioner was sentenced to a total of 35 years in prison. (Id.,

Exhibit C at pp. 3-4). 

Petitioner's counsel filed an appeal in the Arizona Court of

Appeals pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

(Doc. 8, Exhibit D at pp. 1-2). Petitioner was granted additional

time to file a supplemental brief but did not do so. As a result,

the Arizona Court of Appeals reviewed his convictions and

Case 3:06-cv-00872-EHC Document 10 Filed 06/23/06 Page 1 of 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 2

sentences for fundamental error and affirmed the convictions and

sentences in a memorandum decision entered on June 9, 1992. (Id.,

Exhibit D at pp. 2-3).

By petitioner's own timeline, he had nothing pending in state

court until he filed a Notice of Post-Conviction Relief in the

trial court in March, 1999. (Doc. 1 at p. 2). Petitioner did not

file a petition in this proceeding until April 4, 2005. (Doc. 1

at p. 2; Doc. 8 at Exhibit E). The trial court dismissed the Rule

32 in an order filed on August 1, 2005. (Doc. 8 at Exhibit F). 

Petitioner states he did not seek review of this dismissal in

either the Arizona Court of Appeals or Arizona Supreme Court. 

(Doc. 1 at p. 2). 

On January 23, 2006, petitioner filed a Petition for Special

Action in the Arizona Court of Appeals. (Doc. 8 at Exhibit G). 

The Arizona Court of Appeals issued an order on January 30, 2006, 

declining to accept jurisdiction. (Doc. 8 at Exhibit H). 

Petitioner did not seek review in the Arizona Supreme Court. 

(Doc. 1 at p. 3).

On March 27, 2006, petitioner filed a federal habeas corpus

petition raising the following grounds for relief:

GROUND I: Lack of Jurisdiction (subject matter)

Amendments, VI, XIV, Section 1 to United States

Constitution

GROUND II: Denial of Right to Effective Assistance of

Counsel Amendment VI to United States Constitution

GROUND III: Constructive Denial of Counsel Altogether

Amendment VI of the United States Constitution

GROUND IV: Denial of Right to Appeal Amendment XIV,

Section 1 to United States Constitution

Case 3:06-cv-00872-EHC Document 10 Filed 06/23/06 Page 2 of 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 3

(Doc. 1 at pp. 5-8 and Attachments).

B. DISCUSSION

Respondents contend that all petitioner's claims are barred

by the 1-year statute of limitations provided at 28 U.S.C. §

2244(d)(1). (Doc. 8 at pp. 2-3). Alternatively, they contend

that all claims are procedurally defaulted. (Id. at pp. 3-7).

A. Statute of Limitations

As part of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act

of 1996 ("AEDPA"), Congress provided a 1-year statute of

limitations for all applications for writs of habeas corpus filed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging convictions and

sentences rendered by state courts. This provision, codified at

28 U.S.C. § 2244, states, in pertinent part:

(d)(1) A 1-year period of limitations shall apply to an

application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The

limitation period shall run from the latest of --

(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the

conclusion of direct review or the expiration of time

for seeking such review;

(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an

application created by State action in violation of the

Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if

the applicant was prevented from filing by such State

action;

(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted

was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the

right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and

made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral

review; or

(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim

or claims presented could have been discovered through

the exercise of due diligence.

In Calderon v. United States District Court for the Northern

Case 3:06-cv-00872-EHC Document 10 Filed 06/23/06 Page 3 of 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

1

 The Ninth Circuit has held that, pursuant to the counting

provisions outlined in Fed.R.Civ.P. 6, the one-year limitations

period for all habeas petitioner's challenging convictions or

sentences finalized prior to the April 24, 1996 effective date of

the AEDPA is April 24, 1997. Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243,

1246 (9th Cir. 2001).

4

District of California ("Beeler")(en banc), 128 F.3d 1283 (9th

Cir. 1997), the Ninth Circuit addressed the new limitations period

contained at 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The Court noted that prior

to § 2244(d)’s enactment "state prisoners had almost unfettered

discretion in deciding when to file a federal habeas petition" and

that "delays of more than a decade did not necessarily bar a

prisoner from seeking relief." Beeler, 128 F.3d at 1286.

The Court noted, however, that the provisions of § 2244(d)

"dramatically changed this landscape" and a petitioner was now

"required to file his habeas petition within one year of the date

his process of direct review came to an end." Id. The Court,

following other circuits, also held that the period of limitations

"did not begin to run against any state prisoner prior to the

statute’s date of enactment" of April 24, 1996. Beeler, 128 F.3d

at 1287. Thus, all federal habeas corpus claims concerning state

court judgments finalized prior to April 24, 1996, had to be filed

by April 23, 1997,1 or they were barred by the statute of

limitations absent a showing the circumstances surrounding the

filing of the petition fell into one of the categories listed in §

2244(d)(1)(B)-(D).

The Beeler Court also held § 2244(d) established a customary

statute of limitations period "subject to equitable tolling." Id.

at 1288-89. The statute itself provided for tolling the

Case 3:06-cv-00872-EHC Document 10 Filed 06/23/06 Page 4 of 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 5

limitations period when a "properly filed application for State

post-conviction or other collateral relief with respect to the

pertinent judgment or claim is pending." 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). 

However, the Court cautioned that equitable tolling of the

limitations period "will not be available in most cases but will

only be granted if 'extraordinary circumstances’ beyond a

prisoner’s control make it impossible to file a petition on time." 

Beeler, 128 F.3d at 1288-89 (citing Alvarez-Machain v. United

States, 107 F.3d 696, 701 (3rd Cir. 1997)).

B. Application of Law to Facts of the Case

The Arizona Court of Appeals issued its decision affirming

petitioner's convictions and sentences on June 9, 1992. (Doc. 8

at Exhibit D). Petitioner states he did not seek review before

the Arizona Supreme Court and, although no documentation is

included in the record, further states that the Arizona Court of

Appeals issued its order and mandate in this matter on July 17,

1992. (Doc. 1 at p. 2). As a result, petitioner's direct appeal

became final at that time.

The statute of limitations found at 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)

requires that all habeas applicants filing habeas challenges to

convictions and/or sentences finalized prior to the law's

effective date of April 24, 1996, must file such challenges no

later than April 24, 1997. See Patterson, 251 F.3d at 1246. By

his own admission, petitioner had nothing pending in state court

after his direct appeal ended until he filed a Notice of PostConviction Relief in March, 1999. (See Doc. 1 at p. 2; Doc. 8 at

p. 3). Although a properly failed petition for post-conviction or

Case 3:06-cv-00872-EHC Document 10 Filed 06/23/06 Page 5 of 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

2

Because petitioner's claims are clearly barred by the statute

of limitations, it is not necessary to address petitioner's

alternative argument that the claims are procedurally defaulted.

6

other collateral relief tolls the running of the statute of

limitations, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), once the limitations

period expires such proceedings cannot save an untimely claim. 

See Ferguson v. Palmateer, 321 F.3d 820, 823 (9th Cir.), cert.

denied, 540 U.S. 924 (2003).

Petitioner has presented no basis for equitable tolling of

the statute of limitations and no basis is apparent from the

record. As a result, all petitioner's claims are time-barred.2

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus be denied as untimely. 

This Report and Recommendation is not an order that is

immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any

notice of appeal filed pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the

district court’s order and judgment. The parties shall have ten

(10) days from the date of service of this Report and

Recommendation within which to file specific written objections

with the Court. Thereafter, the parties have ten (10) days within

which to file a response to the objections. Failure to timely file

objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation

will be considered a waiver of a party's right to de novo

consideration of the factual issues and will constitute 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

Case 3:06-cv-00872-EHC Document 10 Filed 06/23/06 Page 6 of 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 7

Report and Recommendation.

DATED this 22nd day of June, 2006.

Case 3:06-cv-00872-EHC Document 10 Filed 06/23/06 Page 7 of 7