United States District Court, D. Arizona
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
HONORABLE DEBORAH M. FINE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This
matter is on referral to the undersigned pursuant to Rules
72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for
further proceedings and a report and recommendation. Carleen
Crenshaw-Bruce (“Petitioner” or
“Crenshaw-Bruce”) filed her petition for a writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(“Petition”) on November 27, 2017 (Doc.
1)[1].
She was released from prison on February 9, 2018, upon
completion of her sentence. (Doc. 14-18 at 28) Respondents
filed their Limited Response on March 29, 2018 (Doc. 14), and
Petitioner subsequently filed her Reply on July 5, 2018 (Doc.
22). As is explained below, the undersigned recommends that
Crenshaw-Bruce's Petition be denied and dismissed with
prejudice. . . . . . .
I.
BACKGROUND
A.
Petitioner's trial, conviction, and sentence
The
State filed a direct complaint against Petitioner in the
Maricopa County Superior Court on July 22, 2010, alleging
counts of interfering with judicial proceedings, resisting
arrest, and possession or use of dangerous drugs. (Doc. 14-1
at 7-8) These charges arose from Petitioner's actions
alleged to have occurred on March 9, 2010 in Mesa, Arizona.
(Id.) A probable cause statement provided by one of
the Mesa Police Department arresting officers detailed that
an order of protection had been issued against Petitioner on
March 5, 2010. (Id. at 4) At trial, this arresting
officer testified that Petitioner's mother had obtained
the protective order. (Doc. 14-3 at 38-40) When officers
responded to Petitioner's mother's call, they
reportedly learned that Petitioner had been banging on her
mother's door and yelling at her. (Doc. 14-1 at 10) The
arresting officer stated he had advised Petitioner she was
under arrest for interfering with judicial proceedings.
(Id.) The officer further stated that Petitioner
forcefully resisted arrest, even after the officers took her
to the ground and pepper sprayed her. (Id.) In the
probable cause statement, the officer declared that after
Petitioner had been transported to the jail, he asked her if
she had any drugs or contraband on her person, and that she
replied she had a container of methamphetamine on the left
side of her bra. (Id.) A search of her person
located a small pouch containing a crystalline substance that
subsequently tested positive for the presence of
methamphetamine. (Id.)
The
trial court ordered a competency evaluation of Petitioner in
April 2011 (Doc. 14-1 at 81), which resulted in a finding in
May 2011 that she was competent to stand trial (Id.
at 85-86). Due to concerns expressed by Petitioner's
counsel, she was again referred for competency evaluation in
January 2012. (Id. at 87-88) Petitioner was deemed
not competent to stand trial in May 2012, and was ordered to
complete treatment to restore her to competency.
(Id. at 93-96) In August 2012, the court found
Petitioner had been restored to competency. (Id. at
100-102)
In
November 2012, the superior court conducted a hearing on
Petitioner's Motion to proceed pro se. (Doc.
14-2 at 126-138) The court decided to send Petitioner for an
additional competency evaluation, thinking that Petitioner
could be instructed on court rules sufficiently to allow her
to represent herself. (Id. at 134) In April 2013,
the superior court permitted Petitioner to waive her right to
counsel, and assigned appointed counsel to assist her in the
preparation and trial of her case. (Id. at 142)
Petitioner requested a bench trial (Id. at 160-166),
which the court subsequently granted (Id. at 169,
185).
Petitioner
represented herself during her two-day bench trial. (Doc.
14-3 at 22-240) At the conclusion of trial, the court found
Petitioner guilty on all three charges. (Id. at 232)
On October 18, 2013, the court sentenced Petitioner to time
served on Count 1 (interfering with judicial proceedings), to
the presumptive term of 3.75 years on Count 2 (resisting
arrest), and to a mitigated term of 6 years on Count 3
(possession or use of dangerous drugs). (Doc. 14-5 at 28-29)
The court ordered the sentences for Counts 2 and 3 to run
concurrently. (Id. at 30) Petitioner was represented
by appointed counsel for her sentencing proceedings. (Doc.
14-4 at 9-13)
B.
Direct appeal
After
trial but prior to sentencing, Petitioner filed a special
action with the Arizona Court of Appeals in July 2013 in
which she argued a number of errors associated with the
protective order, her arrest, discovery issues,
representation by defense counsel, her guilty verdict, and
the legitimacy of her confinement. (Doc. 14-6 at 2-17) She
asked the court of appeals to reverse the trial court
judgment and release her from custody. (Id. at 17)
The court of appeals declined jurisdiction on July 19, 2013.
(Doc. 14-8 at 2) In October 2013, after sentencing,
Petitioner again filed a special action with the Arizona
Court of Appeals. (Id. at 4-9) She alleged trial and
sentencing errors. (Id.) The court of appeals again
declined jurisdiction on October 25, 2013. (Id. at
11)
Petitioner
filed a notice of appeal of her conviction and sentencing on
October 31, 2013. (Doc. 14-18 at 51) Her appointed counsel
filed an opening brief on June 9, 2014. (Doc. 14-8 at 30-57)
The issues presented included: (1) whether the trial court
erred by holding a suppression hearing without Petitioner
being present; and (2) whether the State violated
Petitioner's constitutional rights by interrogating her
before giving her Miranda warnings. (Id. at
43) The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed in a memorandum
decision dated November 25, 2014. (Doc. 14-9 at 28-33)
Petitioner filed a petition for review in the Arizona Supreme
Court in January 2015, and that court denied review on May
22, 2015. (Doc. 14-10 at 11)
C.
Post-conviction relief (“PCR”) action
Petitioner
filed a notice of PCR with the superior court on November 4,
2013. (Doc. 14-10 at 21-22) Her appointed counsel moved to
withdraw her notice of PCR without prejudice pending the
outcome of her direct appeals in state court. (Id.
at 33) Acting pro se, Ms. Crenshaw-Bruce submitted a
revised PCR petition filed by the court on September 16,
2015. (Doc. 14-14 at 2-31) Petitioner alleged claims related
to her arrest, trial court rulings, her conviction and
sentencing, the effectiveness of representation by trial
counsel, and her right to be represented by counsel.
(Id.)
The
superior court denied her petition in a reasoned decision
filed on February 19, 2016. (Doc. 14-16 at 70-77) Ms.
Crenshaw-Bruce's petition for review to the Arizona Court
of Appeals (Doc. 14-17 at 2-21) was granted and relief was
summarily denied in a decision filed on February 18, 2016.
(Id. at 77-78) Petitioner did not seek further
review.
D.
Petitioner's habeas claims
As
noted, Ms. Crenshaw-Bruce filed her Petition in November
2017. In Ground 1, Petitioner asserts that she was arrested
on Count 1 (criminal interference with judicial proceedings)
without probable cause, in violation of Arizona Rules of
Criminal Procedure 5.3 and 5.4. (Doc. 1 at 5-6) In Ground 2,
Petitioner argues violations of Arizona Rule of Criminal
Procedure 2.5 and of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of
the United States Constitution arising out of the filing of
her complaint in Justice Court. (Id. at 7-8) In
Ground 3, Petitioner alleges she was arrested without a valid
warrant in violation of her Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment
rights. (Id. at 9-10) Petitioner's Ground 4
claim is that the government caused the “unlawful use
of a Departmental Report Number[, ]” resulting in a
miscarriage of justice. (Id. at 11-13) In Ground 5,
Petitioner claims violation of her speedy trial rights under
the Arizona and United States Constitutions. (Id. at
14-15) Petitioner contends in Ground 6 that the State engaged
in prosecutorial misconduct and violated her rights under
Brady as well as the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments. (Id. at 16-26) In Ground 7, Petitioner
asserts claims of ineffective assistance of counsel
(“IAC”) committed by trial counsel, and a single
claim of IAC by appellate counsel. (Id. at 27-33)
II.
...