United States District Court, D. Arizona
Jerry E. Ryan, Petitioner,
Charles L Ryan, et al., Respondents.
HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Honorable John Z. Boyle, United States Magistrate Judge.
Jerry Ryan has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1.)
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSION.
pleaded guilty to attempted theft of a means of
transportation and was sentenced to a stipulated 10-year term
of imprisonment. Petitioner alleges he received ineffective
assistance of trial, sentencing, and PCR counsel. The Court
concludes that Petitioner fails to establish that the state
court's rejection of his Strickland claims in
Ground One was objectively unreasonable. Petitioner's
claim in Ground Two is procedurally defaulted and meritless.
The Court will recommend the Petition be denied and dismissed
Plea and Sentencing.
October 12, 2012, Petitioner pleaded guilty to one count of
attempted theft of a means of transportation with two
historical prior felony convictions. (Doc 13-1, Ex. F, at
30.) Petitioner stipulated that a presumptive, 10-year term
of imprisonment would run concurrently with prison sentences
from four other convictions from Pima and Yavapai Counties.
(Id.) On December 4, 2012, the trial court sentenced
Petitioner. (Doc. 13-1, Ex. I, at 57.)
Post-Conviction Relief Proceedings.
December 24, 2012, Petitioner filed his first Notice of
Post-Conviction Relief (PCR). (Doc. 13-1, Ex. J, at 65.)
Petitioner was appointed counsel, but counsel concluded there
were no issues to present for PCR relief. (Doc. 13-1, Ex. K,
at 69.) On August 14, 2013, Petitioner filed a pro-per
petition for PCR relief. (Doc. 13-1, Ex. O at 80.) On January
6, 2014, the trial court dismissed his PCR petition with
prejudice after finding that he failed to establish a
colorable claim. (Doc. 13, Ex. R, at 123.)
February 27, 2014, Petitioner filed a second notice of PCR
claiming that his PCR counsel was ineffective because he did
not investigate the IAC claims against his trial counsel.
(Doc. 13-1, Ex. V, at 146.) On May 13, 2014, Petitioner filed
a petition for review with the Arizona Court of Appeals based
on the trial court's January 6, 2014 order denying his
first PCR petition, which claimed his trial counsel and
sentencing counsel were ineffective. (Doc. 13-2, Ex. AA, at
4, 2013, the trial court found the second notice of PCR both
untimely and successive under Rule 32.4(a). (Doc. 13-1, Ex.
W, at 154.) On December 29, 2016, the Arizona Court of
Appeals granted review but denied relief. (Doc. 13-2, Ex. CC,
Petitioner's Habeas Petition.
August 4, 2017, the Petitioner timely filed for Writ of
Habeas Corpus. (Doc. 1.) Petitioner raises two grounds for
relief: (1) ineffective assistance of trial and sentencing
counsel; and (2) ineffective assistance of PCR counsel.