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

 

 Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). The Court has received Respondents’ Answer (Doc. 12), 

Petitioner’s Reply (Doc. 15), the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Magistrate 

Judge (Doc. 19), Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 20), the Response to Petitioner’s Objections 

(Doc. 21), and the Reply to the State’s Response (Doc. 22). The Court also has before it 

briefs on Petitioner’s Motion to Expand Record (Docs. 11, 14) and Petitioner’s Request for 

Evidentiary Hearing (Docs. 16, 17, 18). 

 Petitioner raises eight grounds for relief. In Ground One, Petitioner alleges that his 

sentence was unconstitutional in light of Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013), and 

he was entitled to have a jury determine his parole status before the trial court increased 

his statutory minimum sentence (Doc. 1 at 6). Within Ground One, Petitioner further 

argues that his constitutional rights were violated because the indictment lacked any 

reference to A.R.S. § 13-708 (Doc. 1 at 6). In Grounds Two through Eight, Petitioner 

alleges various claims of ineffective assistance of counsel (Doc. 1 at 7-13). Respondents 

Jonathan Elijah Large, 

 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CV-17-04526-PHX-SPL 

ORDER 

 
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 

argue that Petitioner’s Sixth Amendment rights were not violated pursuant to Alleyne (Doc. 

12 at 16-19), and his ineffective assistance of counsel claims fail because he has not shown 

either deficient performance or prejudice (Doc. 12 at 14-16). The Magistrate Judge 

concluded that Petitioner was not prejudiced by the Alleyne error (Doc. 19 at 12-13), his 

claim with respect to the indictment is procedurally defaulted (Doc. 19 at 13-14), and his 

ineffective assistance of counsel claims fail on the merits (Doc. 14-20). 

A district judge “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). When a party files 

a timely objection to an R&R, the district judge reviews de novo those portions of the R&R 

that have been “properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A proper objection requires 

specific written objections to the findings and recommendations in the R&R. See United 

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1). It 

follows that the Court need not conduct any review of portions to which no specific 

objection has been made. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 

U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (discussing the inherent purpose of limited review is judicial 

economy). Further, a party is not entitled as of right to de novo review of evidence or 

arguments which are raised for the first time in an objection to the R&R, and the Court’s 

decision to consider them is discretionary. United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621-622 

(9th Cir. 2000). 

The Court has undertaken an extensive review of the sufficiently developed record 

and the objections to the findings and recommendations in the R&R, without the need for 

an evidentiary hearing or expansion of the record. After conducting a de novo review of 

the issues and objections, the Court reaches the same conclusions reached by Judge Fine. 

Specifically, the Court finds all eight of Petitioner’s claims lack merit. The Court further 

finds that the indictment claim is unexhausted and procedurally defaulted. 

 Having carefully reviewed the record, the Petitioner has not shown that he is entitled 

to habeas relief. The R&R will be adopted in full. Accordingly, 

/// 
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 

 IT IS ORDERED:

1. That the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19) is 

accepted and adopted by the Court; 

2. That the Petitioner’s Objections (Docs. 20, 22) are overruled; 

3. That Petitioner’s Motion to Expand the Record (Doc. 11) is denied as moot; 

4. That Petitioner’s Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. 16) is denied; 

5. That the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is denied and this action 

is dismissed with prejudice; 

6. That a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis 

on appeal are 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, and because jurists 

of reason would not find the court’s assessment of the constitutional claim debatable or 

wrong; and 

7. That the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. 

 Dated this 30th day of January, 2019. 

Honorable Steven P. Logan 

United States District Judge