Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-01303/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-01303-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Amos Beverett,

Petitioner,

v.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Respondents.

______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV-13-1303-TUC-DCB

ORDER

This matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and the local rules of practice of this

Court for a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on the Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. Before the Court is the

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 23), which recommends

that the Petition be denied and dismissed. The Petitioner filed

Objections to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 26.) A Reply (Doc.

32) was filed June 22, 2015.

SUMMARY

On September 29, 2010, Petitioner was convicted in Pima County

Superior Court, case #CR 2009-1782-001, of three counts of sale and/or

transfer of a narcotic drug, and was sentenced to concurrent, presumptive

prison terms of 15.75 years. On October 18, 2011, Petitioner appealed his

convictions and sentences to the Arizona Court of Appeals. See State v.

Case 4:13-cv-01303-DCB Document 35 Filed 10/30/15 Page 1 of 5
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

Beverett, No. 2 CA-CR 2010-0397, 2011 WL 6226138 (Ariz. Ct. App. Dec. 14,

2011). On December 14, 2011, the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the

convictions and sentences. On March 7, 2012, Petitioner filed a Rule 32

Petition for Post-Conviction Relief in Pima County Superior Court, which

was denied on May 24, 2012. (Doc. 1 at 4). On October 3, 2012, Petitioner

sought review of the denial of his Rule 32 Petition for Post-Conviction

Relief in the Arizona Court of Appeals. State v. Beverett, No. 2 CA-CR

2012-0419-PR, 2013 WL 653698 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 21, 2013). The Arizona

Court of Appeals granted review of the Rule 32 petition, but denied

relief. Id. On May 7, 2013, Petitioner filed a special action in Pima

County Superior Court. (Doc. 1 at 5). In his Petition, Petitioner states

that, as of October 2, 2013, the Pima County Superior Court had not

issued a decision on the special action. (Id. at 5). In his Petition,

Petitioner names Charles L. Ryan as Respondent and the Arizona Attorney

General as an Additional Respondent. Petitioner raises seven grounds for

relief: (1) that defense counsel was ineffective in failing to object to

testimonial hearsay at trial;(2) that defense counsel was ineffective in

failing to file a motion to suppress statements made by an anonymous

informant; (3) that defense counsel was ineffective in failing to file

a motion to suppress evidence; (4) that defense counsel was ineffective

in failing to tell Petitioner that the case involved an anonymous

informant; (5) that testimonial hearsay was admitted at trial in

violation of Petitioner’s rights to due process, confrontation, and a

fair trial under the United States and Arizona Constitutions; (6) that

testimonial hearsay was admitted at trial in violation of Petitioner’s

rights to due process, confrontation, and a fair trial under the United

States and Arizona Constitutions; and (7) that the Indictment was

Case 4:13-cv-01303-DCB Document 35 Filed 10/30/15 Page 2 of 5
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

defective, resulting in violations of Petitioner’s rights to due process

and a fair trial under the United States and Arizona Constitutions.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When objection is made to the findings and recommendation of a

magistrate judge, the district court must conduct a de novo review.

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 

OBJECTIONS

A. Procedurally Defaulted Claims: Grounds Four through Seven

Petitioner asserts four claims of ineffective assistance of counsel

(IAC) (Grounds One through Four), two claims that testimonial hearsay was

admitted at trial in violation of Petitioner’s rights to due process,

confrontation, and a fair trial under the United States and Arizona

Constitutions (Grounds Five and Six) and one claim that the Indictment

was defective, resulting in violations of Petitioner’s rights to due

process and a fair trial under the United States Constitution (Ground

Seven). The R&R found that Grounds One through Three of the Petition are

exhausted and went on to address them on the merits, and Grounds Four

through Seven were procedurally defaulted.

Petitioner’s objections contain no new information that suggests

that the conclusions in the R&R are incorrect. The Court agreed with the

R&R’s finding that the special action filed was not a successive Rule 32,

and thus the claim should not be precluded is not persuasive. 

Accordingly, this Court will adopt the R&R with reference to

Grounds Four through Seven as procedurally defaulted and will dismiss

them as such.

Case 4:13-cv-01303-DCB Document 35 Filed 10/30/15 Page 3 of 5
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

B. Claims on the Merits: Grounds One Through Three

Petitioner objects to the magistrate judge’s recommendation that

his claims in Grounds One through Three fail on the merits. Ground One

is Petitioner’s claim that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing

to object to the admission of hearsay, i.e., the police officer’s

testimony about what the anonymous informant had told him. (Doc. 1, at

6.) Ground Two is his claim that his trial counsel was ineffective in

failing to file a motion to suppress any statements made by the

informant. (Doc. 1, at 7.) Ground Three is Petitioner’s claim that his

trial counsel was ineffective in failing to file a motion to suppress any

evidence relating to the anonymous informant that was obtained

unconstitutionally. (Doc. 1, at 8.)The magistrate judge found that the

state courts did not unreasonably apply the relevant clearly established

federal law, Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984), in

resolving these claims. (Doc. 23, at 18–21.) Under this standard, to

show ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show both that

counsel’s actions fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and

that the defendant suffered prejudice as a result. Id. at 687–88. To show

prejudice, “[t]he defendant must show that there is a reasonable

probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of

the proceeding would have been different.” Id. at 694.

The trial court found that the evidence (the informant’s

statements) was admissible and therefore trial counsel’s “failure to

raise an objection based on the anonymous informant does not meet either

prong of the Strickland test.” (Doc. 13, Exh. N, at 2–3.) The court of

appeals adopted this ruling. (Doc. 13, Exh. Q, at 2–3.) The magistrate

judge found that this was not an unreasonable application of Strickland,

Case 4:13-cv-01303-DCB Document 35 Filed 10/30/15 Page 4 of 5
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

Petitioner also asserts in his objections that his trial attorney

had a “duty to call this anonymous informant to testify” and that his

failure to do so was “deficient” and “clearly prejudiced” him. (Doc. 26,

at 5.) To the extent Petitioner is attempting to raise a claim that his

trial counsel was ineffective in failing to call the informant to

testify, he made no such claim in his habeas petition. (Doc. 1.) Although

this Court has discretion to consider new claims raised for the first

time in objections to a R&R, this Court will decline to do so. See Brown

v. Roe, 279 F.3d 742, 744–45 (9th Cir. 2002). First, Petitioner gives no

reason for his failure to present this claim in his petition. Second, as

explained below, this claim appears to be unexhausted, and therefore

could not provide a basis for habeas relief. See 28 U.S.C. §

2254(b)(1)(A) (a federal court will not grant habeas relief to a

petitioner held in state custody unless he or she has exhausted the

available state remedies).

5

addressing only the issue of prejudice. (Doc. 23, at 19–20.)1 This Court

agrees.

Petitioner’s Objections do not highlight any new or pertinent

law or facts that were left unconsidered or unresolved by the R&R, as

reinforced by the Defendant’s responses.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, after conducting a de novo review of the record,

IT IS ORDERED that the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation

(Doc. 23) in its entirety. The Objections raised by the Petitioner are

OVERRULED. The motion to strike (Doc. 34) is DENIED.

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

(Doc. 1) is DENIED and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. Final

Judgment to enter separately by the Clerk’s Office. A Certificate of

Appealability is likewise DENIED. This action is closed.

DATED this 28th day of October, 2015.

Case 4:13-cv-01303-DCB Document 35 Filed 10/30/15 Page 5 of 5