United States District Court, D. Arizona
DAVID C. BURY, District Judge.
This matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and the local rules of practice of this Court for a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 29), which recommends that the Petition be denied and dismissed. The Petitioner filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 34). Respondents filed a Response to Objections. (Doc. 38.) Petitioner filed a reply to the response, over objection, and motion to strike as not procedurally contemplated by the applicable rules and statutes.
Petitioner was convicted in Cochise County Superior Court, case #XXXX-XXXXX, of two counts of molestation of child and was sentenced to a 30-year term of imprisonment.
Petitioner raises seven grounds for relief:
(1) Petitioner's right to effective assistance of counsel at trial was violated when his attorney did not fully investigate his case prior to trial or present two key witnesses at trial;
(2) Petitioner's due process rights were violated by the state's use of perjured testimony at trial;
(3) Petitioner's due process rights were violated when the trial court failed to consider newly-discovered material evidence;
(4) Petitioner's Sixth Amendment rights were violated when he was denied new counsel during his Rule 32 proceeding after his trial attorney withdrew;
(5) Petitioner's due process rights were violated when the trial court denied Petitioner's request for appointment of an investigator/expert witness;
(6) Petitioner's due process rights were violated during his Rule 32 proceeding when the court denied hearing Petitioner's claim of perjured testimony at trial; and,
(7) Petitioner's due process rights were violated when the trial court failed to hold an evidentiary hearing on Petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When objection is made to the findings and recommendation of a magistrate judge, the district court must conduct a de novo review. United States v. ...