United States District Court, D. Arizona
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Honorable John Z. Boyle United States Magistrate Judge
HONORABLE JOHN J. TUCHI, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
William Kangas has filed Motion for Relief Pursuant to Rule
60(b). (Doc. 31.)
Summary of Conclusion.
argues that he is actually innocent because other individuals
could have placed pornographic materials on his computer
without his knowledge. But Petitioner's claim is nothing
more than additional argument regarding claims already
considered by the state courts and this Court.
Petitioner's claim must be dismissed because it is a
disguised, successive § 2254 motion.
Rule 60 Motion.
March 16, 2018, Petitioner filed a Rule 60 Motion arguing
there is “proof of actual innocence” in his case.
(Doc. 31 at 15.) He submits “there are five (5)
different ways that Mr. Lamm could have put the
[pornographic] pictures and videos on Mr. Kangas'
computer.” (Id.) He asserts that the
prosecution's computer experts were not experts on
“hacking” and had “no knowledge concerning
how computers can be ‘hacked' or
‘manipulated.'” (Id. at 18.) He also
asserts that “with the amount of pictures and videos
allegedly found on Mr. Kangas' computer, and given the
fact that Mr. Kangas held a job, took care of his son and
participated in activities outside his home, it is feasable
that these pictures and videos were placed on his computer by
‘hackers' and/or Mr. Lamm.” (Id. at
20.) He argues that if “trial counsel acted with the
customary skill and diligence” and argued that
Petitioner's computer had been hacked, then Petitioner
would not have been convicted. (Id. at 20.)
also includes a summary of facts and findings related to the
disbarment of his trial counsel for conduct between November
2012 and January 2015. The Court notes that Petitioner's
trial and appeal concluded before 2009.
Facts of the Crimes.
Court includes a recitation of the facts because they are
relevant to Petitioner's claim of actual innocence. The
Arizona Court of Appeals found the following:
In September 2005, Kangas was experiencing difficulties
accessing digital pictures on his computer's hard drives.
Because Kangas's co-worker, A. Lamm, was experienced in
repairing computer systems, Kangas gave Lamm a loose hard
drive and a computer tower containing two hard drives on or
about September 25, 2005, so Lamm could retrieve
“family pictures.” After scanning one of the
disks in the tower, Lamm discovered a large number of digital
photos depicting children engaged in sexual acts. Lamm
reported the discovery to his supervisor and ultimately, Yuma
police seized the computer equipment and conducted a forensic
examination of the loose hard drive, which had at one time
been connected to the computer. In three different folders on
the hard drive, police discovered seven pictures and three
digital videos that formed the basis of the indictment
charging Kangas with ten counts of sexual exploitation of a
minor in violation of A.R.S. § 13-3553(A)(2) (Supp.
A jury convicted Kangas as charged and found each offense
involved a minor under the age of 15. The superior court
sentenced Kangas to ten mitigated ten-year consecutive
flat-time prison sentences. Kangas timely appealed.
State v. Kangas, 2008 WL 3856357, at *1-2