United States District Court, D. Arizona
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
A. BOWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
before the court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus
filed on May 7, 2018, by Walter Thomas Ward, an inmate
currently held in the Arizona State Prison Complex in
Florence, Arizona. (Doc. 1)
to the Rules of Practice of this court, the matter was
referred to Magistrate Judge Bowman for report and
recommendation. LRCiv 72.2(a)(2).
Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, after
its independent review of the record, enter an order
dismissing the petition. It is time-barred.
of the Case
September 26, 2007, Ward was convicted after a jury trial of
“multiple felony offenses including aggravated assault,
kidnapping, armed robbery, and sexual assault of a minor
under fifteen.” (Doc. 12-3, pp. 2-6); (Doc. 12-6, p. 3)
On October 23, 2007, the trial court sentenced Ward to
combined sentences of imprisonment totaling approximately 96
years. (Doc. 12, pp. 29-38)
direct appeal, Ward argued that the state failed to preserve
evidence, the state violated his rights under Brady v.
Maryland, his cross-examination of a state's witness
was improperly limited, and the prosecution committed
misconduct. (Doc. 12-10, p. 33) The Arizona Court of Appeals
affirmed his convictions on May 20, 2009. (Doc. 12-10, p. 32)
The Arizona Supreme Court denied review on July 21, 2009.
(Doc. 12, p. 100)
filed notice of post-conviction relief (PCR) on September 2,
2009. (Doc. 12, p. 102) In his petition, he argued that the
trial court improperly limited his counsel's closing
argument to sixty minutes and erroneously excluded evidence
of bad acts committed by the co-defendant after his arrest.
(Doc. 13, p. 58) He further argued that trial counsel and
appellate counsel were ineffective in their handling of those
issues. Id. On March 9, 2010, the trial court denied
the petition for post-conviction relief. (Doc. 13, p. 3) The
Arizona Court of Appeals granted review but denied relief on
July 9, 2010. (Doc. 13, p. 57)
seven-and-one-half years later, on February 20, 2018, Ward
filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief (PCR).
(Doc. 13, p. 64) He claimed (1) the “grand jury failed
to invoke its jurisdiction, ” (2) the “superior
court failed to invoke its jurisdiction, ” and
further raised a (3) “claim of actual/factual
innocence.” (Doc. 13, pp. 64-70) The trial court found
Ward's claims to be precluded because they could have
been raised on appeal or in his first petition for
post-conviction relief. (Doc. 13, p. 76) Ward did not file a
petition for review with the Arizona Court of Appeals. (Doc.
1, pp. 5-6)
filed in this court a petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on May 7, 2018. (Doc. 1) He
claims (1) the “grand jury failed to invoke its
jurisdiction, ” (2) the “superior court failed to
invoke its jurisdiction, ” and further raises a (3)
“claim of actual/factual innocence.” (Doc. 1) His
claims are entirely conclusory without any explanation or
September 6, 2018, the respondents filed an answer arguing,
among other things, that the petition is time-barred. (Doc.
10) Ward did not file a timely reply. The respondents are
correct; the petition is time-barred.
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