Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00762/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00762-0/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

Merwin M. Hill, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-762-PHX-ROS

ORDER

On February 5, 2008, Magistrate Judge Jennifer C. Guerin filed a Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied

(Doc. 18). For the reasons below, the R&R will be adopted.

BACKGROUND

On November 7, 2002, Petitioner pled guilty to aggravated assault with one prior

felony conviction. On January 9, 2003, the trial court accepted the plea and sentenced

Petitioner to an aggravated 10-year term of imprisonment. Petitioner’s sentence was

aggravated based on his prior felony conviction and the harm suffered by the victim. 

Petitioner alleges five grounds for relief in his Petition: (1) ineffective assistance of

counsel rendering his plea involuntary; (2) due process violation because his guilty plea was

Case 2:07-cv-00762-ROS Document 20 Filed 07/24/08 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

- 2 -

not supported by a sufficient factual basis; (3) ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing;

(4) his sentence violated Blakely v. Washington; and (5) due process violation in the

application of A.R.S. § 13-702(D) to his sentence.

The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Petition be dismissed on all grounds.

Specifically, she found that Petitioner’s second claim was procedurally barred; his fifth claim

was not exhausted; and his first, third, and fourth claims were without merit. Petitioner

timely filed an objections to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation regarding his first,

second, and fourth claims only. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If objections are

made, the Court “make[s] a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified

findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id. The Court, however, is not

required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). 

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, a federal court

“shall not” grant habeas relief with respect to “any claim that was adjudicated on the merits

in State court proceedings” unless the State court decision (1) “was contrary to, or involved

an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the

Supreme Court of the United States,” or (2) “was based on an unreasonable determination

of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. §

2254(d); see also Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412–413 (2000). A state court’s decision

is “contrary to” clearly established precedent if it (1) “arrives at a conclusion opposite to that

reached by [the Supreme Court] on a question of law,” or (2) “decides a case differently than

[the Supreme Court] has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts.” Williams, 529 U.S.

at 413. A state court’s decision involves an “unreasonable application” of federal law if it

(1) “correctly identifies the governing rule but then applies it to a new set of facts in a way

that is objectively unreasonable,” or (2) “extends or fails to extend a clearly established legal

Case 2:07-cv-00762-ROS Document 20 Filed 07/24/08 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

- 3 -

principle to a new context in a way that is objectively unreasonable.” Hernandez v. Small,

282 F.3d 1132, 1142 (9th Cir. 2002).

ANALYSIS

I. Grounds Three and Five

Because Petitioner did not object to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation regarding

his third and fifth claims, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation with

respect to these claims without further review. See Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149.

II. Grounds One, Two, and Four

After a de novo review of the record, the Court will adopt the Magistrate Judge’s

recommendations. Regarding Petitioner’s first claim, the Magistrate Judge correctly

concluded that counsel’s representation did not fall below an objective standard of

reasonableness. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687–88 (1984). 

Regarding his second claim, the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that this claim

was procedurally barred because the Petitioner pleaded guilty. See Mabry v. Johnson, 467

U.S. 504, 508 (1984). 

Finally, regarding Petitioner’s fourth claim, because Petitioner was sentenced within

the sentencing range, the trial court’s factfinding did not violate the Sixth Amendment under

Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). See United States v. Fifield, 432 F.3d 1056,

1066 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Judicial factfinding does not, on its own, violate the Sixth

Amendment, even when that factfinding is the basis for enhancing a defendant’s sentence.

Judicial factfinding does violate the Sixth Amendment, however, when that factfinding

enhances the maximum sentence to which a defendant is subject.”).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 18) is ADOPTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is

DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDER the Clerk of Court shall close this case.

Case 2:07-cv-00762-ROS Document 20 Filed 07/24/08 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

- 4 -

DATED this 24th day of July, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-00762-ROS Document 20 Filed 07/24/08 Page 4 of 4