United States District Court, D. Arizona
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MICHELLE H. BUMS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
TO THE
HONORABLE DOUGLAS L. RAYES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT:
Petitioner
Melinda Gabriella Valenzuela has filed a pro se Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc.
8). After the matter was stayed pending the resolution of
Petitioner's petition for review in the Arizona Court of
Appeals, Respondents filed an Answer (Doc. 20). Since
Respondents filed their Answer, Petitioner has filed over
20-plus documents with this Court along with her Reply.
BACKGROUND
In her
habeas petition, Petitioner claims to be challenging her
judgment of conviction on April 9, 2014, in Maricopa County
Superior Court. As Respondents have identified, it appears
that Petitioner has convictions in two different cause
numbers arising on that same Dated: (1) CR2012-159201 and (2)
CR2013-001579. (Exhs. LL, MM.) The record reflects that
Petitioner entered guilty pleas in both cases, and was
sentenced in both cases on April 9, 2014. (Exhs. EE, FF, GG,
LL, MM.) The Court construes Petitioner's habeas petition
to challenge Petitioner's convictions in both state court
cases - CR2012-159201 and CR2013-001579.
In
CR2012-159201, Petitioner pleaded guilty to one count of
theft of a means of transportation, with one prior felony
conviction. (Exh. EE.) In CR2013-001579, Petitioner pleaded
guilty to another count of theft of a means of
transportation, but with no prior felony conviction. (Exh.
FF.) The trial court sentenced Petitioner to 9 years'
imprisonment in the 2012 case, and placed Petitioner on 5
years' probation in the 2013 case - to commence upon her
release from prison. (Exhs. EE, FF, GG, LL, MM.)
On May
16, 2014, Petitioner filed a notice of post-conviction
relief. (Exh. NN.) On February 5, 2015, counsel for
Petitioner filed a “Notice of Completion of
Post-Conviction Review by Counsel; Request for 45 Day
Extension of Time to Allow Defendant to File Pro Per Petition
for Post-Conviction Relief, ” indicating that she could
not find any colorable issues, and requesting an extension of
time for Petitioner to file a pro se PCR petition. (Exh. PP.)
The trial court granted Petitioner additional time to file a
pro se PCR petition. (Exh. QQ.)
On
September 11, 2015, Petitioner filed a pro se PCR petition in
the 2012 case claiming the following: (1) she was on
“mental health meds and was not fully alert in
court”; (2) her counsel was also counsel for her alibi
witness and should have withdrawn from the case; (3) counsel
withheld documents from Petitioner; (4) counsel communicated
with the prosecutor in an attempt “to set [Petitioner]
up and to not fully represent her”; (5) the trial court
never heard the motion for change of venue based on the
contention that Petitioner's mother worked for the court;
(6) “they” made promises of recommendations
“they didn't put in the sentence of imprisonment
minute entry”; (7) “several other errors”
occurred; (8) Petitioner “never willingly signed the
plea, ” but instead was threatened by her counsel and
the prosecutor to take it; (9) the judge denied
Petitioner's motions to challenge the grand jury without
cause, even though Petitioner knew three grand jury members;
(10) a witness in the grand jury gave inaccurate testimony;
(11) Petitioner's advisory counsel asked for a Rule 11
competency evaluation; (12) the judge refused to address
various issues, but ordered a “second Rule 11”
evaluation for no reason; (13) the court and counsel for both
parties “plotted to show that [Petitioner] was crazy
even though 4 doctors found her competent not once but
twice”; (14) Petitioner's legal file was stolen by
jail officials and the court did not address this; (15)
Correctional Health Services (“CHS”) made
misrepresentations about Petitioner and did not “fully
evaluate the mental health”; and (16) Petitioner was
threatened several times that “the court would hang her
alive and get away with it” if she did not take the
plea. (Exh. RR.)
In her
“affidavit” in support of her petition,
Petitioner alleged that: (1) “evidence was lost by the
State and police tampered” with the evidence; (2)
Petitioner's mother was currently a Maricopa County
judge; (3) the judge who took the plea threatened
Petitioner's “life with harm if [she] didn't
take the plea the State offered”; and (4) Petitioner
had a substantial amount of evidence in her possession that
showed she was innocent, but her attorney would not properly
address it. (Exh. RR.)
In
another “affidavit” filed in support, Petitioner
alleged that: (1) she was “not coherent at the time the
plea was signed”; (2) she had attempted suicide the day
after the change of plea; (3) she had been hospitalized
multiple times for mental health reasons; (4) counsel
threatened Petitioner that if she did not take the plea,
“she would use her power as [Petitioner's] lawyer
to ensure that [she] was killed in [prison]”; (5) the
prosecutor threatened to put Petitioner away for life if she
did not take the plea; and (6) Petitioner felt threatened and
thought she would “be hurt by [her] counsel if [she]
didn't accept the plea.” (Exh. RR.)
Also,
on September 11, 2015, Petitioner filed another PCR notice
and pro se PCR petition in the 2013 case. (Exh. SS.)
Petitioner alleged the following: (1) her Miranda
rights were violated; (2) evidence was “tampered with
by the State”; (3) she knew members of the grand jury
and was denied the right “to challenge them”; (4)
she was actually innocent; (5) there was a “conflict
between Maricopa [County] due to the fact that
[Petitioner's] mother is currently a sitting judge on the
bench and she was involved with a county attorney in an
[intimate] manner”; (6) the judge abused her discretion
when it ordered her into Rule 11 proceedings; (7) she suffers
from P.T.S.D. (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder) and G.I.D.
(Gender Identity Disorder), attempted suicide multiple times
during the case, and is “S.M.I.” (Seriously
Mentally Ill); (8) counsel did not call people to speak at
sentencing; and (9) counsel refused to send Petitioner
medical records. (Exh. SS.)
In an
“affidavit” filed in support, Petitioner alleged
that the trial judge threatened Petitioner's “life
with harm” if Petitioner did not take the plea. (Exh.
SS.)
On
January 13, 2016, Petitioner filed an amended pro se PCR
petition in the 2013 case. The amended petition consisted
primarily of multiple case-related exhibits, including that
following: (1) Petitioner's “Motion to Extend Time
to File 12.9 Motion”; (2) an excerpt from the
sentencing transcript; (3) the sentencing minute entry in
Petitioner's 2013 case; (4) an affidavit mirroring the
statements in the first affidavit included with
Petitioner's original PCR petition; (5) a
“statement of facts”; (6) a competency evaluation
from Dr. Ramirez; (7) a competency evaluation from Dr.
Patrasso; and (8) a competency evaluation from Dr. Youngjohn.
(Exh. XX.)
Petitioner
filed another amended pro per PCR petition in the 2013 case
on January 14, 2016 - which appears to be a duplicative
filing. (Exh. ZZ.)
The
State filed a consolidated response to all of
Petitioner's PCR petitions. (Exh. AAA.) Although the
court allowed Petitioner to file a reply, she failed to do
so. (Exhs. BBB, CCC.) On August 5, 2016, the trial court
dismissed the PCR proceeding concluding that Petitioner had
not raised any colorable claims. (Exh. CCC.)
Thereafter,
Petitioner filed another PCR notice in the 2012 case. (Exh.
DDD.) Petitioner asserted she was entitled to file another
petition because: (1) the claim was based on “[n]ewly
discovered material facts [that] would probably have changed
the verdict or sentence”; (2) the failure to file a
timely PCR notice or notice of appeal was without
Petitioner's fault; and (3) “[f]acts exist which
establish by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant
is actually innocent.” (Exh. DDD.) Petitioner stated:
“The court held documents and made orders to get
records but has not sent the records, counsel held records
and these are vital to the case.” (Exh. DDD.)
Petitioner checked off the following boxes as possible
grounds for relief: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel;
(2) the unconstitutional suppression of evidence by the
state; (3) “[a]n unlawfully induced plea of guilty or
no contest; (4) “[t]he abridgement of any other right
guaranteed by the constitution or the laws of this state, or
the constitution of the United States”; (5)
newly-discovered evidence; (6) her failure to file a timely
PCR notice was without her fault; and (7) lack of
jurisdiction. (Exh. DDD.)
On
October 17, 2016, the court dismissed the PCR notice finding
that the petition was untimely and successive. (Exh. EEE.)
The court found the following: (1) it did have jurisdiction
over Petitioner's case; (2) Petitioner's ineffective
assistance of counsel claims were precluded, as was her claim
that evidence was unlawfully suppressed and her claim that
her guilty plea was involuntary; (3) Petitioner did not
provide an adequate factual or legal basis for relief under
Rule 32.1(f), which concerns the failure to timely file a PCR
notice or a notice of appeal; (4) Petitioner's
newly-discovered evidence claim was too vague to state a
claim for relief; and (5) Petitioner had not provided
sufficient facts to establish she was actually innocent.
(Exh. EEE.)
On
September 2, 2016, Petitioner filed a petition for review in
the Arizona Court of Appeals. (Exh. FFF.) The Arizona Court
of Appeals identified Petitioner's claims on appeal as
follows:
(1) the superior court failed to properly address her mental
health issues and she was not provided with records and
reports, (2) her guilty pleas were involuntary based on
threats and coercion from her advisory counsel and the
prosecutor, (3) the court improperly refused to address
alleged Miranda violations, (4) her advisory counsel
provided ineffective assistance, (5) other evidence (police
reports, unspecified documents, unspecified statements from a
co-defendant, and unspecified DNA evidence) prove her
innocence, (6) several of Valenzuela's friends were on
the grand jury and her mother was a sitting judge on the
superior court, and (7) she was not awarded full credit for
“back time.”
State v. Valenzuela, 2017 WL 5494381 (Ariz.Ct.App.
November 16, 2017). The appellate court granted review, but
denied relief stating:
¶ 5 Regarding Valenzuela's mental health claims, the
record shows that she was evaluated by several mental health
professionals before accepting the plea agreements. Although
she suffers from mental health issues, four of the five
doctors who evaluated Valenzuela concluded she was competent,
as did the superior court based on the experts' reports.
Valenzuela has not presented any evidence suggesting the
superior court's determination of competence was an abuse
of discretion, nor does the record of the change of plea
proceeding reflect anything that would call Valenzuela's
competency into question.
¶ 6 Valenzuela's claim of an involuntary plea also
fails. Although she now claims her advisory counsel and the
prosecutor threatened her to secure a guilty plea, Valenzuela
advised the court at the change of plea hearing that the
pleas were voluntary and that no one had threatened or forced
her to plead guilty. Absent compelling evidence undermining
Valenzuela's acknowledgment of voluntariness in open
court, her statements to the superior court at the change of
plea are binding. State v. Hamilton, 142 Ariz. 91,
93 (1984).
¶ 7 Valenzuela's remaining claims are either
unsupported by the record or are waived. By pleading guilty,
Valenzuela waived all non-jurisdictional defects-including
constitutional claims-other than claims directly related to
entry of the guilty pleas. See Tollett v. Henderson,
411 U.S. 258 (1973); State v. Quick, 177 Ariz. 314
(App. 1993); State v. Moreno, 134 Ariz. 199, 200
(App. 1982). Her assertions related to alleged
Miranda violations, sufficiency of the evidence,
alleged procedural irregularities, and non-plea-related
ineffective assistance of counsel (assuming arguendo
ineffective assistance of advisory counsel can form a basis
for relief) are thus waived. Moreover, Valenzuela failed to
present any allegedly exculpatory evidence to support an
actual innocence claim or any support for her assertion that
family and friends were involved in the judicial process, and
the record does not support these claims. Nor has she
provided any information supporting her claim that the
superior court failed to award adequate credit for
presentence incarceration.
Valenzuela, 2017 WL 5494381.
In her
habeas petition, Petitioner names Charles L. Ryan as
Respondent and the Arizona Attorney General as an Additional
Respondent. Petitioner raises three grounds for relief: (1)
Plaintiff received ineffective assistance of counsel, in
violation of the Sixth Amendment; (2) Plaintiff was denied
her constitutional right to an impartial judge when she was
“threatened” by the judge and her lawyer to take
the plea; and (3) Plaintiff's constitutional rights were
violated when her lawyer refused to review DNA evidence that
would have proven her innocence. (Docs. 8, 7.)
In
their Answer, Respondents argue that Grounds One and Three
are procedurally defaulted, and Ground Two fails on the
merits.
DISCUSSION
A.
...