Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jager v. Ryan

United States District Court, D. Arizona

February 5, 2019

Mathew Jager, Petitioner,
v.
Charles L. Ryan, et al., Respondents.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          HONORABLE JOHN Z. BOYLE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         TO THE HONORABLE JAMES A. TEILBORG, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

         Petitioner Mathew Jager has filed a pro se Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 13.)

         I. Summary of Conclusion.

         In a single claim, Petitioner argues that his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination were violated when he was compelled to take a urine test at the direction of his probation officer. He alleges the state was not permitted to use the positive methamphetamine result against him. But Petitioner pleaded guilty to possession or use of methamphetamine, so this claim is waived. Therefore, the Court will recommend that the Amended Petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice.

         II. Background.

         A. Factual and Procedural Background.

         On May 6, 2012, Petitioner was placed on lifetime probation for a class 3 felony in a related case. (Doc. 26-1, Ex. F, at 21.)

         On December 3, 2015, the Yavapai County Adult Probation Office and local law enforcement conducted a warrantless search of Petitioner's residence. (Doc. 26-1, Ex. K, at 59.) Petitioner lived in the home with his wife, J.J. (Id.) The search of the residence uncovered a “usable amount of methamphetamine, ”[1] a syringe with heroin, drug paraphernalia, and a “large sword.” (Id.) Petitioner was arrested and transported to a detention facility, where Probation Officer S. Hayden “required a urine sample from [Petitioner] which he provided.” (Doc. 26-1, Ex. P, at 167.) The urine test “indicated a positive screening for methamphetamine.” (Id.)

         On January 8, 2016, a grand jury issued a one-count Indictment charging Petitioner with Misconduct Involving Weapons for possessing a prohibited weapon, a sword. (Doc. 26-1, Ex. A, at 4.) On January 19, 2016, the state alleged that Petitioner had two prior felony convictions, which could be used to enhance his sentence. (Doc. 26-1, Ex. B, at 6.)

         On May 9, 2016, Petitioner pleaded guilty to Amended Count One of the Indictment, Possession or Use of Dangerous Drug (Methamphetamine), a class 4 felony, which was committed on December 3, 2015. (Doc. 26-1, Ex. D, at 11.) Petitioner's plea agreement stipulated that he be sentenced to a term of imprisonment. (Id. at 12.) On June 7, 2016, the court sentenced Petitioner to a presumptive term of 30 months of imprisonment. (Doc. 26-1, Ex. G, at 30.)

         B. Post-Conviction Review Proceedings.

         On June 5, 2017, Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). (Doc. 26-1, Ex. I, at 38.) On June 7, 2017, the court found the petition “was filed one year after imposition of sentence and is therefore untimely.” (Doc. 26-1, Ex. J, at 42.)

         On August 3, 2017, Petitioner filed a petition for special action in the Arizona Court of Appeals. (Doc. 26-1, Ex. K, at 44.) On August 18, 2017, the court dismissed the petition as untimely, but dismissed without prejudice to allow Petitioner to file a motion in superior court to argue he “was without fault for the untimely filing.” (Doc. 26-1, Ex. M, at 94.) Petitioner did not file any further motions in the trial court, but instead filed a Petition for Special Action in the Arizona Supreme Court on ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.