Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Qualls v. Ryan

United States District Court, D. Arizona

May 8, 2015

William Kenneth Qualls, Petitioner,
v.
Charles L. Ryan, et al., Respondents.

ORDER

JAMES A. TEILBORG, Senior District Judge.

Pending before the Court are the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. 133), recommending that Petitioner's Petition Under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State Custody (Non-Death Penalty) be denied, and Petitioner's Application for Certificate of Appealability from the District Court and Statement of Reasons in Support (Doc. 138).

I. Background

Petitioner does not dispute, and the Court adopts, the procedural history described by the magistrate judge:

On October 3, 2003, at the conclusion of a five-day trial in the Maricopa County Superior Court, a jury found Qualls guilty of 10 felonies arising out of his sexual contact with minors. (Doc. 90, Ex. B) On November 3, 2003, the court sentenced Qualls to presumptive, consecutive sentences totaling 96 years. (Doc. 90, Ex. C)
Qualls timely appealed arguing that the statute of limitations had run before the State prosecuted him. (Doc. 90, Exs. D, E) The Court of Appeals disagreed and affirmed his convictions. (Doc. 90, Exs. E, ZZ) Qualls timely petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court for review. (Doc. 90, Exs. G, H) On May 24, 2005, the Arizona Supreme Court denied Qualls' petition for review. (Doc. 90, Ex. G) Qualls did not file a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.
On July 27, 2005, Qualls filed a Notice of Post Conviction Relief in Maricopa County Superior Court. (Doc. 90, Ex. I) The Superior Court appointed counsel who, on September 23, 2005, notified the Court that he did not find any claims to raise in postconviction relief proceedings. (Doc. 90, Ex. J) The Superior Court set an extended briefing deadline so that Qualls could file a pro per Rule 32 petition. (Doc. 90, Ex. J) Qualls did not file any petition before the Superior Court's December 12, 2005 deadline; on January 20, 2006, the Superior Court dismissed Qualls' Rule 32 proceeding. (Doc. 90, Ex. K)
Successive Rule 32 Petitions. In March 2009 - over three years after the Superior Court dismissed Qualls' Rule 32 proceeding - Qualls filed a Notice and Petition of Post-Conviction Relief in Maricopa County Superior Court. (Doc. 90, Exs. L, M) He argued that his sentence was not imposed in accordance with Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and that his counsel was ineffective. The Court ruled in July 2009, first noting that the substance of his Apprendi claim also included Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), but then concluding that neither Apprendi nor Blakely applied because Qualls had received presumptive and not aggravated sentences. The Court further concluded that his ineffective assistance of counsel claim could not be raised in an untimely Rule 32 proceeding. Accordingly, the Court denied his Notice and Petition. (Doc. 90, Ex. O) Qualls appealed. (Doc. 90, Exs. P, Q, R, S) In February 2011, the Court of Appeals denied review, and in August 2011, the Arizona Supreme Court did, too. (Doc. 90, Exs. T, U, V, AAA)
In November 2009, Qualls filed in Maricopa County Superior Court a Motion to Dismiss, along with other supporting documents, all of which argued that his convictions should be vacated because the courts did not have subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 90, Exs. W, X) The Court treated his filing as a successive Rule 32 petition that did not raise any cognizable claims and dismissed it. (Doc. 90, Ex. Y)
In July 2010, Qualls filed an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in Maricopa County Superior Court. (Doc. 90, Ex. Z) In this Petition, he appeared to argue lack of subject matter jurisdiction; violations of due process, equal protection and public laws; invalid law and unconstitutional statutes; fraud; kidnapping and unlawful imprisonment; concealment of evidence; and ineffective assistance of counsel. (Doc. 90, Ex. Z) In August 2010, the Court interpreted it as an untimely Rule 32 Petition that did not raise any cognizable claims and dismissed it. (Doc. 90, Ex. AA) Qualls petitioned for review but, in April 2012, the Court of Appeals denied his petition. (Doc. 90, Exs. BB, CC, DD, EE, HHH)
In April 2012, Qualls filed pleadings in the Superior Court which the Court treated as untimely requests for reconsideration and denied them. (Doc. 90, Exs. FF, GG, HH) In May 2012, Qualls filed a petition for review in the Court of Appeals which was dismissed. (Doc. 90, Exs. II, JJ, CCC)
In October 2012, Qualls again filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in Maricopa County Superior Court. (Doc. 90, Ex. MM) In November 2012, Qualls filed an amended Petition along with several additional pleadings, all of which argued lack of subject matter jurisdiction, violation of due process, invalid law, and unconstitutional statutes.[1] (Doc. 90, Ex. NN) The Superior Court again treated his pleadings as a successive Rule 32 petition that did not raise any cognizable claims and dismissed it. (Doc. 90, Ex. NN) Qualls filed a notice of appeal and, in April 2014, the Court of Appeals granted review and denied relief. (Doc. 90, Exs. OO, PP, FFF)
In December 2012, Qualls filed additional pleadings in Maricopa County Superior Court. (Doc. 90, Ex. III) The Court noted that if, as Qualls claimed, he was not seeking Rule 32 relief, then he should file a separate civil action. (Id. ) Accordingly, the Court took no action on his pleadings. (Id. )
In July 2013, Qualls filed a second appellate challenge to the Superior Court's August 2010 dismissal. (Doc. 90, Ex. EEE) In September 2013, the Court of Appeals granted review and denied relief, and in January 2014, the Arizona Supreme ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.