Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01437/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01437-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

Stephen C. Dean, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV07-1437-PHX-SRB

ORDER

On July 26, 2007 Petitioner, Stephen C. Dean, filed a timely Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus challenging his state court convictions for theft of means of transportation,

aggravated with two prior felony convictions and shoplifting. Petitioner raised four grounds

for relief in his petition all of which generally relate to the fact that after he requested new

counsel the state court prosecutor refused thereafter to enter into plea negotiations with him

or to allow him to accept a previously offered plea agreement. Petitioner’s specific claims

are quoted verbatim in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation at page 5. 

Respondents filed their answer to the petition on December 11, 2007, arguing that the

petition should be dismissed because the grounds alleged are procedurally barred from

further review as they were not properly raised in the state court. Petitioner filed a rebuttal

to the state’s answer on January 25, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01437-SRB Document 18 Filed 04/14/08 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 -

On February 12, 2008, the Magistrate Judge issued her Report and Recommendation

recommending that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied and dismissed with

prejudice because Petitioner’s claims were all procedurally defaulted. Petitioner requested

and was granted an extension of time to file objections to the Report and Recommendation.

Thereafter Petitioner filed timely written objections on March 20, 2008. Respondents have

not filed any objections to the Report and Recommendation nor have they responded to the

objections.

This Court has conducted a de novo review of the record in this case and agrees with

the conclusion of the Magistrate Judge that Petitioner has procedurally defaulted his claims.

Petitioner’s objections will be overruled and the petition denied and dismissed with prejudice

for the reasons set out below.

The factual background leading up to Petitioner’s state court conviction after a jury

trial for theft of a means of transportation, aggravated by two prior felony convictions and

shoplifting are set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Petitioner

does not take issue with this recitation of the facts in his objections. While he disputes the

Magistrate Judge’s characterization of his four grounds for relief as essentially the same, he

does not dispute that all of these grounds revolve around the fact that on the day he was to

accept the state’s plea agreement and plea guilty he had second thoughts about his previous

waiver of the conflict that existed with his defense attorney and requested new counsel.

After that date, the prosecutor refused further plea negotiations and refused to allow

Petitioner to enter into the previously offered plea agreement. He alleges that his

constitutional rights were violated by this series of events and characterizes them as a

violation of due process based on alleged prosecutorial vindictiveness, a violation of his

Sixth Amendment right to “conflict free” counsel, a violation of due process because he was

punished for doing what the law allowed him to do, and a violation of his constitutional right

to counsel because the state imposed a penalty upon the exercise of his legal right to change

counsel.

Case 2:07-cv-01437-SRB Document 18 Filed 04/14/08 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 -

As the Magistrate Judge noted in her Report and Recommendation before a state

prisoner can bring issues before the federal court on a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus he

must first exhaust his remedies in state court. To properly exhaust his state remedies, a

habeas petitioner must fairly present his claims in state court in a procedurally appropriate

manner. If the constitutional claims are not properly presented in state court the federal court

cannot consider the claims unless the Petitioner can demonstrate either cause for his noncompliance and actual prejudice or that a fundamental miscarriage of justice would result.

See, Report and Recommendation at p. 5-6.

The record reflects that when Petitioner made his direct appeal to the Arizona Court

of Appeals and his subsequent Petition for Review to the Arizona Supreme Court he argued

the constitutional violations that he raises in this petition. But Petitioner failed to first raise

these issues before the trial court judge. Therefore the Court of Appeals concluded that these

issues were waived on appeal. In its memorandum decision filed January 25, 2007, the Court

of Appeals noted that after new counsel was appointed the issue of the possibility of

defendant entering into a plea agreement or pleading guilty was never again raised before the

trial judge. The Court of Appeals concluded:

On appeal, Defendant contends that the prosecutor acted with prosecutorial

vindictiveness because he did not reopen or continue plea negotiations after

Defendant requested new counsel. We review Defendant’s claim for

fundamental error because he failed to raise the issue at trial.

Exhibit Q to Respondents’ Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, p. 6. 

In his objections to the Report and Recommendation Petitioner argues that exhaustion

does not apply to his case because he factually pled his issues in state court in accordance

with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. §2254(b)(1) by timely presenting his claims to Arizona’s

highest court in a procedurally appropriate manner. The Court disagrees. While the issues

raised in this habeas petition were raised before the Arizona Court of Appeals, the Arizona

Court of Appeals found that they could not be considered because they had not been raised

before the trial court. The Arizona courts never decided Petitioner’s constitutional claims but

only engaged in a fundamental error review. As noted by the Magistrate Judge, fundamental

Case 2:07-cv-01437-SRB Document 18 Filed 04/14/08 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 -

error review does not exhaust claims that were never fairly presented for purposes of federal

habeas review. Report and Recommendation at p. 7. (Citing Poland (Michael) v. Stewart,

117 F.2d 1094, 1105 (9th Cir. 1997) and Martinez-Villareal v. Lewis, 80 F.3d 1301, 1306 (9th

Cir. 1996)).

Petitioner also argues cause and prejudice and fundamental miscarriage of justice to

excuse his procedural default. The standard for cause and prejudice to excuse a procedural

default requires that a petitioner “point to some external cause that prevented him from

following the procedural rules of the state court and fairly presenting his claim.” Report and

Recommendation at p. 8. (Citing Robinson v. Ignacio, 360 F.3d 1044, 1052 (9th Cir. 2004)).

In his petition, rebuttal and objections Petitioner has failed to show any external impediment

preventing him from raising his constitutional claims at the state trial level. 

A miscarriage of justice exists only when a constitutional violation has resulted in the

conviction of one who is actually innocent. Report and Recommendation at p. 8. (Citing

Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 495-496 (1986)). Petitioner does not raise such a claim.

Instead he asserts that the totality of errors should be deemed fundamental and thereby

establish cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice. This is not the

standard for cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice to excuse a

procedural default. 

In order for the Arizona Court of Appeals to review his claims of constitutional error,

Petitioner was first required to raise those claims before the trial court. He never did and the

Arizona Court of Appeals was limited to a fundamental error review. Under the federal

requirements for exhaustion Petitioner never properly presented his constitutional claims for

decision in the Arizona state court and, therefore, those claims cannot be considered here.

IT IS ORDERED overruling Petitioner’s objections to the Report and

Recommendation.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge as the order of this Court.

Case 2:07-cv-01437-SRB Document 18 Filed 04/14/08 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

- 5 -

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

and dismissed with prejudice.

DATED this 11th day of April, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01437-SRB Document 18 Filed 04/14/08 Page 5 of 5