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NOT FOR PUBLICATION 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 

Raymond Barela, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-15-02097-PHX-SRB-DKD

ORDER 

 Petitioner Raymond Barela filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on October 

19, 2015 raising four grounds for relief. He argued that his state court indictment violated 

his double jeopardy rights, that he was subject to cruel and unusual punishment, that his 

Miranda rights were violated and that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel 

because while he told his trial counsel about his sleep apnea, his trial counsel did not 

explore the medical reasons for him falling asleep at the wheel of his vehicle. 

Respondents filed a limited answer arguing that the issues raised by Petitioner were not 

reviewable. 

 Coincident with the issuance of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation, Petitioner filed a Motion to Stay all Habeas Proceedings and to 

Suspend Tolling of Time so that he could return to state court. The Response argued that 

a stay should be denied because any return to state court would be futile. On March 7, 

2018 the Magistrate Judge issued an Amended Report and Recommendation in which he 
- 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 

considered the Motion to Stay. He ordered that the Motion to Stay be denied and 

recommended that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied and dismissed with 

prejudice. Petitioner filed timely written objections to which Respondents filed a 

response. 

 In his objections Petitioner argues that the Magistrate Judge only considered 

procedural matters and asked that the Court consider the merits of his arguments. But 

with respect to all four of Petitioner’s arguments the law requires that his Petition be 

denied. Petitioner’s arguments that the indictment violated his double jeopardy rights, 

that he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, that his Miranda rights were 

violated and that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel prior entering into his 

guilty plea are all matters not reviewable on habeas as they all preceded his guilty plea. 

Petitioner voluntarily and intelligently pled guilty and is prohibited from seeking federal 

habeas corpus relief on the basis of alleged pre-plea constitutional violations. Hudson v. 

Moran, 760 F.2d 1027, 1029-30 (9th Cir. 1985). 

 Petitioner’s arguments and his Motion to Stay revolve around Petitioner’s 

diagnosis by the Arizona Department of Corrections before the incident that gave rise to 

his conviction of sleep apnea. It appears from his objections that in 2017 he learned of an 

individual who used his sleep apnea as a defense in a case involving a vehicular homicide 

and now believes that he should have had that defense as well. Petitioner knew of his 

sleep apnea diagnosis when he pled guilty and voluntarily and intelligently pled guilty in 

state court.1

 

 IT IS ORDERED overruling Petitioner’s Objections to the Amended Report and 

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 

 

1

 The Court notes that Petitioner also attempts to argue in his objections that his sleep 

apnea somehow affected his ability to consider a plea agreement or “much less be stable 

enough to sign the agreement.” (Doc. 31, Resp. to Am. R&R at 3) Petitioner has 

submitted nothing to support his claim that the condition of sleep apnea affects one’s 

ability to consider a plea agreement and voluntarily and intelligently agree to enter into a 

plea agreement. 
- 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 FURTHER ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge as the Order of this Court. (Doc. 30) 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Raymond Barela’s Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying a Certificate of Appealability because 

denial of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurist of reason would not 

find the ruling debatable. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly. 

 

 Dated this 1st day of May, 2018.