Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02570/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02570-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General of the State of Arizona
Respondent
Ivan Bartos
Respondent
Leon Mikinka
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

Leon Mikinka, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Ivan Bartos; Attorney General of the State

of Arizona, 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-2570-PHX-EHC (DKD)

ORDER

On October 27, 2006, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

challenging his guilty plea convictions for forgery, taking the identity of another and credit

card theft in the Superior Court of Maricopa County, State of Arizona (Dkt. 1). Petitioner

was sentenced to concurrent terms totaling four and one-half years of imprisonment. The

matter was referred to Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan who issued a Report and

Recommendation dated May 9, 2007 recommending that the Petition be denied and

dismissed with prejudice (Dkt. 15). Petitioner has not filed an Objection or otherwise

responded to the Report and Recommendation. On May 11, 2007, Respondents filed a

timely Objection to the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 16). 

//

//

Case 2:06-cv-02570-EHC Document 17 Filed 04/14/08 Page 1 of 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 - 2 -

 Standard of Review

The district court reviews de novo the portions of the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation to which there is a filed objection. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)("a judge of

the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report, ..., to which

objection is made."); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.

2003). The district court is not required to review any issue that is not the subject of an

objection. Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219 (D. Ariz. 2003), citing Thomas v.

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

Discussion

Petitioner raised four grounds for relief: (1) that counsel was ineffective during the

change of plea proceedings; (2) that Petitioner was coerced by counsel and the trial court to

accept the plea; (3) that counsel was ineffective during sentencing; and (4) that Petitioner’s

sentence was improperly enhanced with a prior felony conviction. Respondents argued in

their Answer that Petitioner had procedurally defaulted all four grounds (Dkt. 12). In their

Objection (Dkt. 16), Respondents contend that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation is in error in rejecting their argument that Petitioner failed to properly

exhaust grounds one, two and three and in denying the habeas petition on the merits.

Respondents agree with the ultimate disposition but cite as error any recommended finding

that Petitioner properly exhausted his claims in state court. The Court has considered

Respondents’ Objection upon its de novo review. Respondents’ Objection will be overruled.

The Court adopts in full the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and

incorporates the same as a part of this Order. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Respondents’ Objection (Dkt. 16) is overruled. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 15) is adopted in full.

Case 2:06-cv-02570-EHC Document 17 Filed 04/14/08 Page 2 of 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 - 3 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (Dkt. 1) is denied and dismissed with prejudice.

DATED this 11th day of April, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-02570-EHC Document 17 Filed 04/14/08 Page 3 of 3