Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-04183/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-04183-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Donald Charles Wooters, III 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-4183-PHX-MHM (ECV)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE MARY H. MURGUIA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

BACKGROUND

Pending before the court is a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Petitioner Donald Charles Wooters, III. Doc. #1. Pursuant to a

plea agreement, Petitioner was convicted and sentenced on August 22, 2003, in the Maricopa

County Superior Court. Doc. #8, Exh. C. Petitioner pled guilty to one count of manslaughter

and one count of leaving the scene of a fatal injury accident. Id. Petitioner was sentenced

to 12 years in prison for the first count and a consecutive three year term of probation on the

second count. Id. 

On October 18, 2004, Petitioner filed a Notice of Post-Conviction relief under Rule

32 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Doc. #8, Exh. D. The trial court denied the

petition in a Minute Entry filed on November 1, 2004. Doc. #8, Exh. E. Petitioner sought

review in the Arizona Court of Appeals but the request was denied in an order filed on

Case 2:05-cv-04183-MHM Document 10 Filed 12/12/06 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

August 16, 2005. Doc. #9, Exh. F. Petitioner did not seek review in the Arizona Supreme

Court. Doc. #1 at 2.

On December 21, 2005, Petitioner filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this

court. Doc. #1. Petitioner contends that his prison term exceeds what was allowed under the

plea agreement. He further contends that the sentencing court failed to properly consider the

aggravating and mitigating factors and explain the basis for imposing an aggravated sentence.

On June 20, 2006, Respondents filed an Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Doc.

#8. Petitioner did not file a reply despite being told he could do so in the screening order.

Doc. #4 at 2.

DISCUSSION

Respondents contend that the petition should be dismissed because it was not filed

within the statute of limitations period. Respondents further argue that even if the court finds

that the petition was timely, the claims are procedurally defaulted. Because Petitioner did

not file a reply, he has not addressed either the statute of limitations or procedural default

arguments. Based on the information presented, the court finds that the habeas petition was

not filed within the statute of limitations period. As a result, the court need not address the

procedural default issue. 

 The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA") imposes a

statute of limitations on federal petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed by state prisoners.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). A state prisoner must file a federal petition within one year from

"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); see also Lott v.

Mueller, 304 F.3d 918, 920 (9th Cir. 2002). However, "[t]he time during which a properly

filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the

pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward" the limitations period.

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); see also Lott, 304 F.3d at 921. A state petition that is not filed

within the state's required time limit is not "properly filed" and, therefore, the petitioner is

not entitled to statutory tolling. Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 125 S.Ct. 1807, 1812 (2005). "When

Case 2:05-cv-04183-MHM Document 10 Filed 12/12/06 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

a post-conviction petition is untimely under state law, 'that [is] the end of the matter' for

purposes of § 2244(d)(2)." Id. 

Petitioner was convicted and sentenced on August 22, 2003. Doc. #8, Exh. C. By

pleading guilty, Petitioner waived his right to a direct appeal. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 17.1(e).

As a result, the judgment became final for statute of limitations purposes on August 22, 2003

and the limitations period began to run on that date. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A).

Petitioner filed his notice and petition for post-conviction relief on October 18, 2004. Doc.

#8, Exh. D. The trial court denied the petition on November 1, 2004. Doc. #8, Exh. E.

Petitioner alleged in the petition for post-conviction relief that he was entitled to relief

under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). He argued that even though his petition

was filed more than ninety days after the entry of judgment and sentence, his claim was

based on a significant change in the law which satisfies an exception to the time limit. See

Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(g), 32.4(a). The court, however, rejected that argument. The court

explained that Petitioner's Blakely claim did not satisfy the significant change in the law

exception because Blakely does not apply retroactively to convictions that were already final

when the case was decided. Doc. #8, Exh. E. Because Petitioner's claim did not satisfy the

exception, the court concluded that his notice of post-conviction relief was untimely. Id. 

Because the notice and petition for post-conviction relief was not timely, it was not

"properly filed" as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). See DiGuglielmo, 125 S.Ct. 1807,

1814 (2005). As a result, no time was tolled for Petitioner's state petition for post-conviction

relief. Therefore, the statute of limitations expired on August 22, 2004, one year after the

date of the judgment and sentence. Petitioner did not file his habeas petition until December

21, 2005, nearly 16 months after the statute of limitations expired.

For the foregoing reasons, the court finds that Petitioner's habeas petition is untimely

under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), (2). The court will therefore recommend that the petition be

denied and dismissed. 

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED:

Case 2:05-cv-04183-MHM Document 10 Filed 12/12/06 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

 That the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. #1)

be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;

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 ten 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); Fed. R.

Civ. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72. Thereafter, the parties have ten days within which to file a

response to the objections. Failure to timely 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). Failure to timely 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 of judgement entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's

recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 

DATED this 12th day of December, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-04183-MHM Document 10 Filed 12/12/06 Page 4 of 4