Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01167/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01167-0/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

Barry Lee Winston, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-1167-PHX-DGC (ECV)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE DAVID G. CAMPBELL, 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 Barry Lee Winston. (Doc. 1). Pursuant to a plea

agreement, Petitioner pled guilty on February 2, 2005, in Maricopa County Superior Court

to two counts of attempted sexual exploitation of a minor, both class three felonies and

dangerous crimes against children under Arizona law. (Doc. 12, Exh. C). On March 22,

2005, Petitioner was sentenced to 10.5 years in prison on the first count and a consecutive

term of lifetime probation on the second count. (Doc. 12, Exh. E). 

Case 2:10-cv-01167-DGC Document 14 Filed 03/14/11 Page 1 of 6
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

 The petition was actually filed on April 28, 2005, but under the prison mailbox rule

the petition is deemed filed on the date it is delivered to prison authorities for mailing. See

Jenkins v. Johnson, 330 F.3d 1146, 1149 n.2 (9th Cir. 2003).

2

 Although Petitioner dates his petition May 19, 2010, he states that he placed it in the

prison mailing system on June 1, 2010. (Doc. 1 at 11).

- 2 -

On April 18, 2005, Petitioner filed a Notice of Post-Conviction Relief in the Superior

Court.1

 (Doc. 12, Exh. F). The court appointed counsel and on November 21, 2005, counsel

filed a Notice of Completion of Post-Conviction Review by Counsel and a Request for

Extension of Time to Allow Defendant to File a Pro Per Petition for Post-Conviction Relief.

(Doc. 12, Exh. G). Counsel explained in the notice that he was unable to find any claims to

raise and thus asked the court to provide Petitioner time to submit his own petition. (Id.).

On November 22, 2005, the trial court granted the motion and gave Petitioner 45 days to file

a petition. (Doc. 12, Exh. H.) On December 19, 2005, Petitioner filed a Pro-Per Petition for

Post-Conviction Relief. (Doc. 12, Exh. I). After briefing was completed, the trial court, in

an order filed on March 20, 2006, concluded after analyzing Petitioner’s claims that

Petitioner failed to present a colorable claim for relief. (Doc. 12, Exh. L). Petitioner did not

seek review in the Arizona Court of Appeals or the Arizona Supreme Court. (Doc. 1 at 5).

On April 23, 2008, Petitioner filed a second Petition for Post-Conviction Relief.

(Doc. 12, Exh. M). On May 19, 2008, the trial court dismissed the petition after ruling that

the timeliness exceptions under Rule 32.1(f) of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure did

not apply to Petitioner and that the change in the law Petitioner was arguing did not apply

to his convictions. (Doc. 12, Exh. N). Petitioner filed a Petition for Review in the Arizona

Court of Appeals on June 13, 2008, which was denied on September 18, 2009. (Doc. 12,

Exh. O, R). Petitioner did not seek review in the Arizona Supreme Court. (Doc. 1 at 5). 

On June 1, 20102

, Petitioner filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this court.

(Doc. 1). Petitioner alleges two grounds for relief: (1) that his attorney provided ineffective

assistance of counsel when he failed to seek a bail reduction and argue entrapment; and (2)

that he received an illegal sentence under Arizona Revised Statute § 13-604.01. On October

Case 2:10-cv-01167-DGC Document 14 Filed 03/14/11 Page 2 of 6
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 -

14, 2010, Respondents filed an Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. 12).

Petitioner filed a Reply on November 8, 2010. (Doc. 13). 

DISCUSSION

Respondents contend, inter alia, that the habeas petition should be dismissed because

it was not filed within the statute of limitations period. Petitioner fails to address the statute

of limitations in his reply. Because the information presented establishes that the habeas

petition was filed after the limitations period expired, the court finds that the petition is

barred and recommends that it be denied on that basis.

A. Legal Standards

 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). The statute provides:

A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas

corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The

limitation period shall run from the latest of–

(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the

conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for

seeking such review;

(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application

created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws

of the United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented

from filing by such State action;

(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was

initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been

newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively

applicable to cases on collateral review; or

(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or

claims presented could have been discovered through the

exercise of due diligence. 

An "of-right" petition for post-conviction review under Arizona Rule of Criminal

Procedure 32, which is available to criminal defendants who plead guilty, is a form of "direct

review" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). Summers v. Schriro, 481 F.3d

710, 711 (9th Cir. 2007). Therefore, the judgment of conviction becomes final upon the

Case 2:10-cv-01167-DGC Document 14 Filed 03/14/11 Page 3 of 6
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 -

conclusion of the Rule 32 of-right proceeding, or upon the expiration of the time for seeking

such review. See id.

Additionally, "[t]he time during which a properly filed application for State postconviction 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 v. Mueller, 304 F.3d 918, 921 (9th Cir. 2002). A post-conviction petition is "clearly

pending after it is filed with a state court, but before that court grants or denies the petition."

Chavis v. Lemarque, 382 F.3d 921, 925 (9th Cir. 2004). In Arizona, post-conviction review

is pending once a notice of post-conviction relief is filed even though the petition is not filed

until later. Isley v. Arizona Department of Corrections, 383 F.3d 1054, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004).

An application for post-conviction relief is also pending during the intervals between a lower

court decision and a review by a higher court. See Biggs v. Duncan, 339 F.3d 1045, 1048

(9th Cir. 2003) (citing Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214, 223 (2002). However, the time

between a first and second application for post-conviction relief is not tolled because no

application is "pending" during that period. Biggs, 339 F.3d at 1048; see also King v. Roe,

340 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 2003) (The petitioner was "not entitled to tolling during the interval

between the completion of one round of state collateral review and the commencement of a

second round of review."). Moreover, filing a new petition for post-conviction relief does

not reinitiate a limitations period that ended before the new petition was filed. See Ferguson

v. Palmateer, 321 F.3d 820, 823 (9th Cir. 2003).

B. Application

Petitioner was sentenced under the plea agreement on March 22, 2005. Petitioner then

filed a timely "of-right" petition for post-conviction relief under the Arizona Rules of

Criminal Procedure. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.4(a). After the trial court dismissed the

petition on March 20, 2006, Petitioner had 30 days to seek review in the Arizona Court of

Appeals, which he did not do. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c). Accordingly, under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241(d)(1)(A), Petitioner’s conviction became final upon the expiration of that time period,

Case 2:10-cv-01167-DGC Document 14 Filed 03/14/11 Page 4 of 6
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 -

which was April 19, 2006. The limitations period therefore began to run the following day

on April 20, 2006.

The limitations period expired one year later on April 20, 2007. Petitioner did not file

his habeas petition in this court until June 1, 2010, more than three years after the limitations

period expired. Petitioner’s second petition for post-conviction relief in the state court on

April 23, 2008, did not toll or reinitiate the limitations period because the period had already

expired. The habeas petition is therefore untimely.

C. Conclusion

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

the statute of limitations. The court will therefore recommend that the petition be denied and

dismissed.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED:

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

DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED: 

That a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal

be DENIED because the dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and

jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable.

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 14 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 14 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

Case 2:10-cv-01167-DGC Document 14 Filed 03/14/11 Page 5 of 6
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

- 6 -

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 14th day of March, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-01167-DGC Document 14 Filed 03/14/11 Page 6 of 6