United States District Court, D. Arizona
ORDER
HONORABLE RANER C. COLLINS SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE
On July
17, 2018, Petitioner Paul Lavon Hamilton filed a Petition
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a
Person in State Custody (Non-Death Penalty). (Doc. 1.) On
July 31, 2019, Magistrate Judge D. Thomas Ferraro issued a
Report and Recommendation (R&R) in which he recommended
that this Court find that Ground One of the § 2254
Habeas is without merit, and Grounds Two through Five are
procedurally defaulted. (Doc. 23 at 14.) Plaintiff filed an
objection (Doc. 24) and Defendant filed a response (Doc. 25).
Upon review, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's
R&R and dismisses Petitioner's § 2254 Habeas
Petition.
I.
Report and Recommendation: Standard of Review
The
standard the District Court uses when reviewing a magistrate
judge's R&R is dependent upon whether a party
objects: where there is no objection to a magistrate's
factual or legal determinations, the district court need not
review the decision “under a de novo or any
other standard.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,
150 (1985). However, when a party objects, the District Court
must “determine de novo any part of the
magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly
objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify
the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or
return the matter to the magistrate judge with
instructions.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); see also
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Moreover, “while the
statute does not require the judge to review an issue de
novo if no objections are filed, it does not preclude
further review by the district judge, sua sponte or
at the request of a party, under a de novo or any
other standard.” Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154.
Petitioner
does not object to the Magistrate Judge's factual and
procedural history. The Court, therefore, adopts them here
and will not restate them except as they relate to
Petitioner's objection.
II.Petitioner's
Objection
Petitioner's
Objection to the R&R re-argues the merit of his claims:
that in Ground One his trial counsel was ineffective for
failing to inform the trial court that Petitioner was on
medications that affected his ability to enter into a knowing
and voluntary plea. However, he does not explain why the
Magistrate Judge's findings are incorrect. In addition,
Petitioner has not properly objected to the Judge
Ferraro's determination that Grounds Two through Five are
procedurally defaulted.
a.
Grounds Two Through Five
A
petitioner's objections to an R&R must specifically
indicate the findings and recommendations for which the he
disagrees. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). The Court finds that
Petitioner has not raised any specific claims challenging the
Magistrate Judge's determination that Grounds Two through
Five are procedurally defaulted. Nevertheless, the Court has
reviewed the R&R and the associated pleadings and finds
that Magistrate Judge Ferraro's conclusions about Grounds
Two through Five are well-reasoned.
b.
Ground One
Petitioner
objects to Ground One, claiming trial counsel was ineffective
because counsel did not inform the trial court that he was on
medications during the change of plea proceedings. Plaintiff
claims his guilty plea was invalid because these medications
made him groggy and made his guilty plea not knowing and
intelligent. The trial court found this argument had no
merit, the Arizona Court of Appeals granted review but denied
relief, and the Arizona Supreme Court denied the Petition for
Review of his claim.
The
Magistrate Judge found the claim procedurally exhausted, but
determined that the state court decisions were not contrary
to or an unreasonable application of law. (Doc. 23 at 13.)
Judge Ferraro noted that Petitioner had not admitted evidence
that his medications caused the alleged side effects, and his
behavior in the plea proceedings did not raise any red flags
about his ability to enter into a plea. Id. Under
the totality of the circumstances, the trial court's
decision that Petitioner had not demonstrated ineffective
assistance under Strickland v. Washington, 446 U.S.
668 (1984), was a reasonable application of law to the facts
of the case. Id. Moreover, Petitioner could not
demonstrate that but for counsel's alleged
ineffectiveness, the outcome would have been different.
Id. The Magistrate Judge noted that Petitioner
claimed he would not have taken the plea if the plea
proceedings had occurred later in the day because the
medications made him foggy. Id. at 14. However, the
plea proceedings did take place later in the afternoon-at
3:35 p.m. in fact-and so the judge found this argument
unpersuasive. Id.
Petitioner's
Objection merely restates his assertion that the medications
he was on made him incompetent. (Doc. 24.) The Court finds
that the Magistrate Judge's conclusions were correct; the
state court determination as to Ground One was reasonable and
not contrary to Federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a)
(District Court may not grant habeas petition unless
“decision was contrary to, or involved an ...