Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02048/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02048-1/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NOT FOR PUBLICATION 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 

Charlotte Evyonne Wells, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

No. CV 14-02048-PHX-JJT (BSB) 

ORDER 

At issue is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 23) submitted by 

United States Magistrate Judge Bridget Bade recommending that the Court deny the 

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 (Doc. 1), to which 

Petitioner Charlotte Evyonne Wells has filed an Objection (Doc. 24). Also at issue are the 

two Motions for Status (Docs. 25 and 26) filed by Petitioner. 

In the 35-page R&R, Judge Bade thoroughly analyzed and addressed the many 

grounds for relief Petitioner had raised in her Petition, and provided ample support for 

her recommendation that this Court deny and dismiss the Petition. Because the Court will 

adopt the R&R in its entirely, including Judge Bade’s underlying reasoning, it will 

recount only in summary form the reasoning for the recommendation and this Court’s 

conclusions. 

The R&R demonstrates, despite Respondents’ arguments to the contrary, that the 

Petition was timely under the limitations period set forth in 28 U.S.C. Section 2244(d)(1), 

once the statutory tolling was properly applied to account for the time that Petitioner’s 

Case 2:14-cv-02048-JJT Document 28 Filed 01/27/16 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

application for state post-conviction review was pending. However, Judge Bade’s 

analysis also demonstrated that 10 of the 15 discreet grounds for relief that Petitioner 

raised in her Petition are procedurally barred, either because Petitioner failed to present 

her federal claims to the Arizona court, and returning there now would be futile because 

the claims are now waived, or because Petitioner did raise the claims in state court, which 

found them barred on state procedural grounds at the time. 

The R&R concluded, and recommended, that five of Petitioner’s grounds were not 

procedurally barred, including a group of four related assertions of ineffective assistance 

of counsel at the plea negotiation stage, and a claim that the search of Petitioner’s car 

violated her Fourth Amendment Rights. Judge Bade recommended that Petitioner’s 

Fourth Amendment ground is beyond habeas review pursuant to Moorman v. Schriro, 

426 F.3d 1044, 1053 (9th Cir. 2005), because it was fully litigated in state court. This is 

correct. The record demonstrates full and fair litigation of the search issue both in the 

pre-trial motion and hearing phase, and again on direct review. 

Judge Bade also recommended that Petitioner is not entitled to relief on her 

remaining claims that urge ineffective assistance of trial counsel during the plea 

negotiation phase. She so recommends because Petitioner has failed to show that the state 

court’s resolution of those claims was based on an unreasonable determination of facts, or 

that such resolution was either contrary to or an unreasonable application of controlling 

Supreme Court precedent. This recommendation is again correct. The record upon 

habeas review provides ample support to meet this deferential standard. 

Petitioner’s objections to the above recommendations are convoluted and hard to 

follow. To the extent the Court can understand them, Petitioner focuses on arguments that 

are no longer at issue, including points on which the Court agrees with her position. For 

example, Petitioner devotes nearly a third of her Objection to the argument that her 

Petition should be deemed timely filed, and that any lateness was due to her receiving 

poor advice from a prison paralegal. (Doc. 24 at pp. 4–21) But Judge Bade 

recommended, and this Court agrees, that the Petition was timely filed after exclusions 

Case 2:14-cv-02048-JJT Document 28 Filed 01/27/16 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

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 

for statutory tolling. This point is therefore moot. Petitioner also dedicates much prose to 

making arguments on the merits that there was a lack of proof of her guilt, and other 

points that likewise do not go to the issues before this Court in the context of a petition 

for habeas review.1

 In short, Petitioner fails to specifically address or dispute with legal 

argument or the application of the correct standard any of Judge Bade’s recommendations 

or conclusions. Instead, the Objections appear to simply restate factual arguments 

Petitioner has previously made 

After a thorough review of the 48-page Objection by Petitioner, this Court finds no 

arguments actually challenging the legal conclusions or findings supporting the 

recommendation to deny the Petition for writ. While Petitioner repeats her version of her 

conversations with trial counsel, Mr. Biller, that is beside the point. The state trial judge 

has already made a determination of credibility and findings based on that determination, 

which, for the reasons Judge Bade has set forth in detail in the R&R, this Court will not 

disturb under law. 

Additionally, Petitioner substitutes in lieu of factual assertions or legal argument 

her repeated contention that she “believes” that the courts would find in her favor on 

these matters. This Court does not doubt Petitioner’s belief. But that is not the standard. 

Petitioner must address the relevant standards applicable to the review of her claims upon 

habeas review rather than her beliefs or conclusory statements that she should prevail 

without any relevant factual or legal argument. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

 1) adopting in whole the Report and Recommendation submitted by Judge 

Bade in this matter (Doc. 23); 

 2) denying the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

Section 2254 (Doc. 1) and dismissing the matter; 

 

1

 Again by way of example, Petitioner argues that there was no proof presented that she was ever present for any drug sale, and that she never would have advised the 

police that the drugs found in her vehicle belonged to her daughter. (Doc 24 at p. 3). 

Case 2:14-cv-02048-JJT Document 28 Filed 01/27/16 Page 3 of 4
- 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) denying a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis on appeal, because the Court finds that dismissal of the Petition is justified by a 

plain procedural bar, and reasonable jurists would not find the ruling debatable; 

 4) denying as moot Petitioner’s Motions for Status (Docs. 25 and 26). 

 Dated this 27th day of January, 2016. 

 

 Honorable John J. Tuchi 

 United States District Judge 

Case 2:14-cv-02048-JJT Document 28 Filed 01/27/16 Page 4 of 4