United States District Court, D. Arizona
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Honorable D. Thomas Ferraro United States Magistrate Judge.
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.
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
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
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
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.)
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.)
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).
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
(1) contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of,
clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme