United States District Court, D. Arizona
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Honorable D. Thomas Ferraro, United States Magistrate Judge
Ed Eagleman (Eagleman or Petitioner), who is confined in the
Arizona State Prison Complex, Winchester Unit in Tucson,
Arizona, filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Petition). (Doc. 1.)
Before the Court are the Petition, supplements to the
Petition, Respondent's Limited Answer to Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus (Answer) and Petitioner's reply
(Doc. 3, 4, 5, 15, 16.) This matter was referred to
Magistrate Judge Ferraro for Report and Recommendation. (Doc.
8.) As more fully set forth below, the Magistrate Judge
recommends that the district court, after
its independent review, deny and
dismiss the Petition.
Arizona Court of Appeals described the facts as follows:
August 5, 2013, Officer Kaufman of the Phoenix Police
Department responded to a call in Phoenix about individuals
in a white Chevrolet truck throwing beer cans and bottles.
When he arrived at the scene, Officer Kaufman located the
white Chevrolet truck and approached it at an angle from the
rear. When the officer was within a few feet of the truck, it
accelerated away from him. Before the truck fled, Officer
Kaufman noticed the driver had dark hair and was wearing a
Kaufman returned to his vehicle and followed the white truck.
He saw the truck make a right turn, and then briefly lost
sight of the truck when it made a left turn shortly
thereafter. When Officer Kaufman caught up to the truck it
had crashed into a tree after making the left turn. Officer
Kaufman found the man with dark hair wearing a blue bandana,
later identified as Ed Eagleman, in the driver's seat
with the door open. A witness who arrived at the scene after
the crash also identified the driver of the truck as wearing
a blue bandana and having long hair.
Officer Kaufman made contact with Defendant, he noticed
Defendant's eyes were bloodshot and watery, he had
trouble maintaining his balance, and had a strong odor of
alcohol. There were also several empty beer cans plainly
visible inside the truck. Defendant required medical
attention because of the accident, and the fire department
immediately took him to the hospital.
hospital, a phlebotomist performed a blood draw on Defendant
for medical reasons in the presence of Officer Barlow. The
phlebotomist handed Officer Barlow a sample from the blood
draw, Officer Barlow sealed the blood sample as evidence, and
it was later tested by a forensic scientist. A test for the
sample revealed Defendant's blood-alcohol content to be
(Doc. 15-1 at 128.)
8, 2015, Petitioner was indicted in Arizona Superior Court,
Maricopa County on two counts of aggravated driving under the
influence (DUI) for driving while under the influence of
alcohol while on a suspended license (count 1) and having a
blood-alcohol content of or exceeding .08 (count 2).
Id. at 4-5.
pled not guilty and, in October 2015, the state filed two
motions in limine. Id. at 7-9, 11-15,
17-21. In the first motion, the state sought the admission of
Petitioner's blood sample through Officer Barlow without
any testimony from the phlebotomist. Id. at 11-15.
The second motion sought the preclusion of statements about
Petitioner's deceased twin brother, whom Petitioner had
claimed was the actual driver. Id. at 17-21. Both
motions were unopposed. Id. at 181-86.
trial court heard oral argument on the state's motions
in limine prior to commencing voir dire. (Doc. 15-1
at 75-76.) Petitioner was not in the courtroom at the time
the motions in limine were argued. Id. at
75. Petitioner arrived later, at which time the trial court
made a record of the earlier arguments and objections and the
trial court repeated its rulings on the motions in limine.
Id. at 24-30, 76.
trial court empaneled ten (10) jurors, including prospective
juror 6. Id. at 79. During vior dire, the trial
court asked whether any prospective juror or his or her
family member or close friend had been charged with driving
while under the influence of alcohol. Id. at 34.
Prospective juror 6 answered: “I have strong feelings
against driving under the influence.” Id. at
36. When asked by the trial court if she were able to
“put those feeling aside and instead … determine
whether or not sufficient evidence has been proven to show
each element proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the
State's evidence, ” prospective juror 6 answered
“yes.” Id. The defense did not move to
strike prospective juror 6. Id. at 38-45, 56-57,
close of the state's case-in-chief, defense counsel moved
for a directed verdict arguing:
Judge, I would move [for a] directed verdict (sic)
with respect to the charges against my client. I don't
believe the State has met its burden with respect to this
case. Thank you.
Id. at 68. The motion was denied. The trial court
I do find that the State has provided sufficient evidence. Of
course[, ] I have to take all the evidence in the light most
favorable to the State for this motion. I do find there is
sufficient evidence as to each element so that a jury could
-- so that it should go to the jury for the determination of
guilt or innocence. So that motion is denied.
Id. at 68-69. Defense counsel renewed his motion for
a directed verdict after closing arguments stating:
Judge, may I renew all motions that previously that I had
asked for with regards to Rule 20. I would like to just renew
that motion for dismissal.
Id. at 72, 88. The trial court denied the renewed
jury found Petitioner guilty of both counts of DUI.
Id. at 88-89. On November 30, 2015, Petitioner was
sentenced to concurrent 10-year terms of imprisonment for
each conviction. (Doc. 15-1 at 92-95.)
November 30, 2015, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal in the
Arizona Court of Appeals. Id. at 100. On June 20,
2016, Petitioner's court appointed appellate counsel
timely filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1976), informing the appellate
court that counsel had searched the record on appeal and
could find no colorable claim for appeal ...