United States District Court, D. Arizona
A. BOWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
before the court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus
constructively filed on March 31, 2017, by Everesto
Harrison, an inmate currently held in the Arizona State
Prison Complex in Eloy, Arizona. (Doc. 1, p. 15)
Judge Bowman presides over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c). (Doc. 13)
petition will be dismissed. Claims (1) - (6) are time-barred.
(Doc. 1) Claim (7) is not cognizable. (Doc. 1)
of the Case
was convicted after a jury trial of “theft of a means
of transportation, burglary, and possession of burglary
tools.” (Doc. 16, p. 3) The trial court sentenced him
to an aggregate term of imprisonment of twelve years. (Doc.
17, p. 3)
filed a direct appeal in which he argued the trial court
abused its discretion when it failed to strike a juror for
cause. (Doc. 16, p. 3) On July 11, 2013, the Arizona Court of
Appeals affirmed Harrison's convictions, but sua sponte
vacated the trial court's criminal restitution order.
(Doc. 16, pp. 3, 7) Harrison did not file a petition for
review with the Arizona Supreme Court.
than one year later, on September 5, 2014, Harrison filed
notice of post-conviction relief (PCR). (Doc. 16, p. 38) When
PCR counsel filed notice that he was unable to find any
meritorious issues, Harrison filed a petition pro se. (Doc.
16, pp. 46-47) The trial court dismissed the petition on
November 24, 2015. (Doc. 17, p. 3) On May 26, 2016, the
Arizona Court of Appeals granted review but denied relief.
(Doc. 17, p. 18) On November 18, 2016, the Arizona Supreme
Court denied his petition for review. (Doc. 17, p. 23)
March 31, 2017, Harrison constructively filed the pending
petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. 1) He claims (1)
trial counsel was ineffective during plea negotiations, (2)
appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to present all
valid claims, (3) the appellate court erred when it denied
Harrison's direct appeal, (4) evidence presented at trial
was insufficient to support the convictions, (5) the trial
court should have granted his motion in limine regarding the
backpack containing the tools, (6) the police failed to
collect and preserve fingerprint or DNA evidence, and (7)
post-conviction relief (PCR) counsel was ineffective for
filing an Anders brief. Id.; see, e.g.,
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
24, 2017, the respondents filed an answer arguing among other
things that the petition is time-barred. (Doc. 15) Harrison
did not file a reply.
respondents are correct; the petition is time-barred. The
court does not reach the respondents' alternate
writ of habeas corpus affords relief to persons in custody in
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the
United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). The petition,
however, must be filed within the applicable limitation
period or it will be dismissed. The statute reads in
pertinent part as follows:
(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an
application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The