Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01981/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01981-1/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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

William Franklin Najar, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, Terry Goddard,

 Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV10-1981-PHX-SRB

ORDER

Petitioner filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

on September 15, 2010 raising seven grounds for relief:

(1) Petitioner alleges he was denied a jury finding of aggravating factors at his

2005 re-sentencing, in violation of the Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v.

Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004).

(2) Petitioner alleges he was denied his constitutional right to have the aggravating

factors proved beyond a reasonable doubt at his 2005 re-sentencing.

(3) Petitioner alleges he was illegally re-sentenced to a term greater than that

authorized by the finding of guilt and absent jury findings of aggravating factors.

(4) Petitioner alleges he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at his 2005

re-sentencing because counsel failed to protect his right to a jury finding of the

aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt.

Case 2:10-cv-01981-SRB Document 22 Filed 08/08/11 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

(5) Petitioner alleges he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel

because counsel failed to seek a determination of Petitioner’s competence to be tried.

(6) Petitioner alleges he was denied his right to due process because he was

convicted of felony murder when there was insufficient evidence to support the predicate

felony.

(7) Petitioner alleges he was denied his right to due process because, during voir

dire, the jury panel was misinformed about their role in sentencing and Petitioner was

denied the full use of his peremptory challenges.

 Respondents filed their answer to Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on

April 14, 2011. Petitioner filed a reply on June 17, 2011. On July 19, 2011, the

Magistrate Judge issued his Report and Recommendation recommending that the Petition

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

In his Report and Recommendation the Magistrate Judge advised the parties that

they had 14 days from the date of service of a copy of the Report and Recommendation

within which to file specific written objections with the Court. The time to file such

objections has since expired and no objections to the Report and Recommendation have

been filed.

The Court finds itself in agreement with the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge.

IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge as the order of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied

and dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying any Certificate of Appealability and leave

to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because Petitioner has not made a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right as required by 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253(c)(2). 

Case 2:10-cv-01981-SRB Document 22 Filed 08/08/11 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 8th day of August, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-01981-SRB Document 22 Filed 08/08/11 Page 3 of 3