United States District Court, D. Arizona
STEPHEN M. McNAMEE, Senior District Judge.
On March 13, 2015, Petitioner Damian Dudley, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Lewis, filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) and paid the $5.00 filing fee, but he did not sign the Petition. In an April 27, 2015 Order, the Court gave Petitioner 30 days to file a certification. On May 6, 2015, Petitioner filed a Motion for Blank Certificate (Doc. 7), a Declaration in Support of his Motion for a Blank Certificate (Doc. 8), and a Motion to Submit Page Eleven of Petition (Doc. 9) and attached a signed copy of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus form's signature page. The Court will accept the signed copy of the Petition form's signature page, deny the Motions as moot, and require an answer to the Petition.
I. Petitioner's Motions
In his Motion for Blank Certificate (Doc. 7), Petitioner states that he did not receive the Certificate form, which was supposed to be included with the Court's April 27, 2015 Order, and requests that a Certificate form be sent to him. In his Motion to Submit Page Eleven of Petition (Doc. 9), Petitioner asks the Court to accept the attached, signed copy of page eleven of the Petitioner for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 form's signature page in lieu of the Certificate form. The Court will accept the provided signature page and will deny Petitioner's motions as moot.
Petitioner was convicted in Maricopa County Superior Court, case #XXXX-XXXXXX, of one count of robbery, one count of kidnapping, and one count of aggravated assault and was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment, the longest of which was seventeen years. Petitioner's conviction and sentence was affirmed by the Arizona Court of Appeals on March 6, 2012, and the Arizona Supreme Court denied his petition for review on July 24, 2012. On October 22, 2012, Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, the Maricopa County Superior Court denied it, and the Arizona Court of Appeals granted review, but denied relief. In his Petition, Petitioner names Charles L. Ryan as Respondent and the Arizona Attorney General as an Additional Respondent. Petitioner raises twelve grounds for relief:
1) Petitioner's indictment violated the Sixth Amendment because it did not allege venue;
2) there were numerous errors that could not have been harmless;
3) the prosecutor failed to properly show that the admission of Petitioner's Massachusetts prior conviction for use as a sentencing enhancement did not violate his Sixth Amendment rights;
4) Petitioner's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when the prosecutor referred to facts that were not proven;
5) Petitioner's constitutional rights were violated because the trial transcripts are not accurate;
6) Petitioner's Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated because Arizona's kidnapping statutes are vague and ambiguous;
7) Petitioner's Fourth Amendment rights were violated when his preliminary hearing date was vacated;
8) Petitioner received ineffective assistance of Rule 32 counsel when counsel failed to raise claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel ...