Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Hayes v. Ryan

United States District Court, D. Arizona

November 20, 2017

William Hayes, Jr., Petitioner,
Charles Ryan, et al., Respondents.


          Honorable D. Thomas Ferraro United States Magistrate Judge.

         Petitioner William Hayes, Jr. (Petitioner), presently incarcerated at the Arizona State Prison Complex - Central Arizona Correctional Facility, in Florence, Arizona, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Petition). Pursuant to the Rules of Practice of the Court, this matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Ferraro for Report and Recommendation. Before the Court are the Petition and Respondent's Limited Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Docs. 1 and 8.) The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, after its independent review of the record, dismiss the Petition.


         The Arizona Court of Appeals determined the facts as follows:

In June 2011, Hayes stopped S.W. as she was walking down the street, persuaded her to enter his vehicle and drove around with her for a while before ultimately taking her to a park. Once there, Hayes threatened to shoot S.W., touched her breasts, and penetrated her vagina. She later identified Hayes in a photographic lineup, and his DNA was found on a swab taken from S.W.'s vagina.
In November 2011, C.M. was involved in an automobile collision and went to a nearby convenience store to use a telephone. While there, she met Hayes, who told her he knew an attorney who could help her and she could use his telephone. Hayes and C.M. went to his apartment, but once inside Hayes showed her a gun, pushed her down, licked her vagina, touched her breasts, and penetrated her vagina with his penis. Hayes' DNA was found in swabs taken from C.M.'s vagina and abdomen.
In April 2012, B.R. met Hayes and went with him to his apartment. There, Hayes pushed B.R. down on a couch. Removed her clothing, and attempted to penetrate her with his penis. He then spit on one or more of his fingers and inserted them into her vagina. B.R. eventually escaped and called 9-1-1. She showed officers the apartment and identified Hayes before going to the hospital and being examined by a nurse. Police later searched the apartment and found methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia.
Hayes was charged with sexual assault, kidnapping, possession of a dangerous drug, and possession of drug paraphernalia in relation to the sexual assault of B.R. He was also charged with attempted sexual assault and sexual abuse of B.R.; sexual abuse, kidnapping, and two counts of sexual assault of C.M.; and kidnapping, sexual assault, and sexual abuse of S.W.
In July 2012, while in the county jail, Hayes transferred money to Bridgett Miller, whom B.R. testified she had seen on the bus, and apparently sought to have Miller influence B.R. not testify against him. Hayes was charged in a separate cause number with attempted tampering with a witness, and that charge was consolidated with the others for trial.
The jurors became deadlocked on some of the counts, but found Hayes guilty on six counts - the drug counts, the witness tampering count, and the charges relating to the sexual assault of B.R. - and not guilty on the count of sexual abuse of B.R. The remaining counts were set for a new trial, which proceeded without objection. Hayes was convicted on the remaining counts at that trial, and the trial court sentenced him to presumptive, consecutive and concurrent prison terms, totaling 31.5 years.

(Doc. 8 at Ex. A. at p. 1, ¶¶ 2-7.) (Footnotes omitted.)

         Petitioner timely appealed and the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed. (Id. at Ex. A.) The Arizona Supreme Court denied Petitioner's petition for review. (Id. at Ex. B at p. 7.) Thereafter, Petitioner timely filed a notice of post-conviction relief (PCR) and was assigned counsel. (Id. at Ex. C.) Petitioner's court appointed counsel filed a petition for PCR asserting three claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. (Id.) The trial court determined Petitioner's claims were without merit and dismissed his PCR petition. (Id.) Thereafter, Petitioner petitioned the Arizona Court of Appeals for review. (Id. at Ex. D at ¶ 1.) The court of appeals determined the trial court had “clearly identified the claims [Petitioner] had raised and resolved them correctly in a thorough, well-reasoned minute entry.” (Id. at ¶ 5.) No petition for review in the Arizona Supreme Court was filed. (Id. at Ex. E at p. 2.)

         The Petition

         Petitioner timely filed the instant Petition asserting three grounds for relief. In Ground One, Petitioner alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective by inadequately preparing for trial. (Doc. 1 at p. 6.) In Ground Two, Petitioner alleges is trial counsel failed to “secure an expert[] or otherwise prepare for testimony[.]” (Id. at p. 7.) In Ground Three, Petitioner alleges that his trial counsel's “deficient performance caused [him] to be denied his Fifth Amendment right to have his trial completed by a particular jury as to Count[s] 8 and 9 of the Indictment.” (Id. at p. 8.) Petitioner presented all three grounds for relief in the trial court as well as the court of appeals. (Doc. 8 at Exs. C, D, and E.)

         As more fully explained below, Petitioner fails to establish that he is entitled to habeas relief under either the “contrary to” clause or “unreasonable application” clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).

         Legal Standard

         The Petition is governed by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Under the AEDPA, the Court “must defer to the state court's resolution of federal claims, ” Delgadillo v. Woodford, 527 F.3d 919, 924 (9th Cir. 2008), and may grant habeas relief only if the state court's decision is:

(1) contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the 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.