Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01716/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01716-1/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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

Edilberto Ryes, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al. 

 Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV05-1716-PHX-SRB

ORDER

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

on June 8, 2005. Petitioner alleges the denial of various constitutional rights from I) trial

counsel's alleged failure to communicate the plea offers; II) alleged inexperience of the trial

judge and his suppression of exculpatory evidence; III) a claimed conspiracy between the

judge, the prosecutor and defense counsel to prevent Petitioner from confronting the victim

prior to trial and; IV) a claimed conspiracy to not maintain records of the communication of

the plea agreement. On December 29, 2005, Respondents filed their answer to Petitioner's

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. No reply was filed. On April 28, 2006, the Magistrate

Judge issued his Report and Recommendation recommending that Ground II, III, and IV of

the petition be dismissed with prejudice because Petitioner never fairly presented to them the

state appellate courts and thus failed to exhaust state remedies on these claims. The

Magistrate Judge recommended that Ground I of the petition be denied because Petitioner's

Case 2:05-cv-01716-SRB Document 29 Filed 06/08/06 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

- 2 -

factual claim that his plea offers were not communicated to him by his lawyer was rejected

by the state court and there was substantial evidence to support the state court's finding that

the plea offers were communicated.

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

had 10 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

long 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

as to Ground I and dismissed with prejudice as to Grounds II, III, and IV. 

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

DATED this 7th day of June, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-01716-SRB Document 29 Filed 06/08/06 Page 2 of 2