Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00855/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00855-0/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

TERMPSREF

LMH

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Michael Garcia, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-0855-PHX-DGC (DKD)

ORDER

Petitioner, presently confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex in Tucson,

Arizona, has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

He has paid the $5.00 filing fee. The Court will order an answer.

A. Procedural Background

Petitioner asserts that on June 12, 2002, in the Maricopa County Superior Court,

Matter No. CR2001-018107, he pled nolo contendere to attempted fraud and filing a false

claim. He was sentenced to consecutive terms of 4 and 2 1⁄2 years. On August 14, 2002, he

filed a notice of post-conviction relief in the Maricopa County Superior Court. His petition

was denied on August 17, 2004. His appeals therefrom were denied, with a final decision

by the Arizona Supreme Court on March 9, 2006. See Pet. at 2. 

In his habeas petition, Petitioner contends that his sentence violates his Sixth

Amendment rights as interpreted in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), because

he was sentenced to aggravated terms based on factors that were not admitted by him in the

Case 2:06-cv-00855-DGC Document 5 Filed 04/20/06 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

TERMPSREF - 2 -

plea. He believes that if he had been given the presumptive sentence instead of an

aggravated sentence, he would already have been released. 

Petitioner further contends that the trial court erred by rejecting his Blakely claim in

his post-conviction proceedings for the reason that Petitioner’s “case was already complete

& my time for appeal has expired.” (Pet. at 5.) The trial court found that:

In regard to the [e]ffect of the recent Blakely decision, this Court has been

cited to no case that makes the Blakely decision retroactive to cases that have

already been completed and where the time for appeal has expired.

(Pet., Ex. A. at p. 2.) Petitioner asserts that his post-conviction proceedings were pending

before the trial court when Blakely was decided on June 24, 2004.

The Ninth Circuit has expressly held that Blakely does not apply retroactively to

habeas actions brought under § 2254. Schardt v. Payne, 414 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 2005), pet.

for cert. filed, No. 05-9237 (Nov. 10, 2005). The retroactivity analysis, however, turns upon

whether Blakely was decided before Petitioner’s conviction became “final.” For purposes

of retroactivity, “a defendant’s case becomes final when ‘a judgment of conviction has been

rendered, the availability of appeal exhausted, and the time for a petition for certiorari

elapsed or a petition for certiorari finally denied.’” State v. Towery, 64 P.3d 828, 831-32

(Ariz. 2003) (quoting Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 321 n.6 (1987)). The question,

then, is when finality occurs for a defendant who enters a plea.

In Arizona, a plea of guilty or no contest waives the right to a “direct appeal,” but

allows “review” only by petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 32 of the Rules

of Criminal Procedure. See ARIZ. R. CRIM. P. 17.1(e). This is known as a “Rule 32 of-right

proceeding.” ARIZ. R. CRIM. P. 32.1. The Arizona Supreme Court has found that the Rule

32 of-right proceeding preserves the state’s constitutional guarantee of appellate review for

pleading defendants. State v. Smith, 910 P.2d 1, 3 (Ariz. 1996) (citations omitted). The Rule

32 of-right proceeding is considered to be analogous to a direct appeal. Id.

In recognition of these principles, the Arizona Court of Appeals has held that Blakely

applies to a petition for review from a Rule 32 of-right proceeding that was pending in the

Arizona Court of Appeals when Blakely issued. State v. Ward, 118 P.3d 1122 (Ariz. Ct.

Case 2:06-cv-00855-DGC Document 5 Filed 04/20/06 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

TERMPSREF - 3 -

App. 2005). The Ward court rejected the trial court’s view that Blakely did not apply when

it had been decided after the defendant had been sentenced but while the petition was

pending in the trial court. Id. at 1125. 

Under Ward, Petitioner was entitled to have Blakely applied to his Rule 32 of-right

proceedings because they were pending when Blakely was decided. A petition for review

of the Ward decision, however, is pending before the Arizona Supreme Court, and the

question of finality of a conviction for a pleading defendant appears to be unsettled under

Arizona law. Accordingly, at this juncture, an answer to Petitioner’s habeas action is

required. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:

(1) A copy of the Petition and this Order be served by the Clerk of Court upon the

Respondent and the Attorney General of the State of Arizona by certified mail pursuant to

Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

(2) Respondent shall answer the Petition within forty (40) days of the date of service.

Respondent shall not file a dispositive motion in place of an answer, but may file an answer

limited to relevant affirmative defenses, including but not limited to, statute of limitations,

procedural bar, or non-retroactivity. If the answer is limited to affirmative defenses, only

those portions of the record relevant to those defenses need be attached to the answer.

Failure to set forth an affirmative defense in an answer may constitute a waiver of the

defense. See Nardi v. Stewart, 354 F.3d 1134, 1140-41 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Morrison

v. Mahoney, 399 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2005). If not limited to affirmative defenses, the

answer shall fully comply with all of the requirements of Rule 5 of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases.

(3) Petitioner may file a reply within thirty (30) days from the date of service of the

answer.

(4) Petitioner shall serve upon Respondent, or if appearance has been entered by

counsel, upon the attorney, a copy of every further pleading or other document submitted for

consideration by the Court. Petitioner shall include with the original document and copy, to

Case 2:06-cv-00855-DGC Document 5 Filed 04/20/06 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

TERMPSREF - 4 -

be filed with the Clerk of the Court, a certificate stating the date a true and correct copy of

the pleading or document was mailed to Respondent or the counsel. Any paper received by

a District Court Judge or Magistrate Judge which has not been filed with the Clerk of the

Court may be disregarded by the Court.

(5) At all times during the pendency of this action, Petitioner shall immediately advise

the Court of any change of address and its effective date. Such notice shall be captioned

“NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS.” The notice shall contain only information

pertaining to the change of address and its effective date. The notice shall not include any

motions for any other relief. Failure to file a NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS may

result in the dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 41(b).

(6) Aside from the two copies of the petition or amended petition that must be

submitted, a clear, legible copy of every pleading or other document filed shall accompany

each original pleading or other document filed with the Clerk for use by the District Judge

or Magistrate Judge to whom the case is assigned. Failure to comply with this requirement

may result in the pleading or document being stricken without further notice to Petitioner.

(7) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan pursuant to Local

Rules of Civil Procedure 72.1 and 72.2 for further proceedings and a report and

recommendation.

DATED this 19th day of April, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00855-DGC Document 5 Filed 04/20/06 Page 4 of 4