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.

Beasley v. Ryan

United States District Court, D. Arizona

November 8, 2019

Telly Onturio Beasley, Petitioner,
v.
Charles L Ryan, et al., Respondents.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          HONORABLE D, THOMAS FERRARO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Petitioner Telly Onturio Beasley (Beasley or Petitioner), formerly confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex, 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, Petitioner's memorandum in support of his Petition and Respondent's Limited Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Answer) (Docs. 2, 12.) 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, dismiss the Petition.

         BACKGROUND

         On May 19, 2013, while on release and while charges related to trafficking in stolen property were pending against him, Petitioner was observed by police officers to be in an area known for illegal drug activity and was subsequently pulled over because the license plate light on his vehicle was not working. (Docs. 12-1 at 17, 32; 12-2 at 71, 79.) During the stop the police officers developed a belief that Petitioner possessed drugs. (Doc. 12-1 at 32.) A subsequent search of the vehicle revealed a baggie containing marijuana under the driver's seat. (Doc. 12-1 at 32.)

         Petitioner was charged in the Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County with possession of marijuana, a class six felony. Id. at 7-8. The state alleged that Petitioner had committed the crime while on release in another criminal matter and that he had three (3) prior felony convictions. Id. at 14, 17.

         Petitioner agreed to plead guilty to one count of possession of marijuana, a class six felony. Id. at 20-22. In exchange for his guilty plea, the state agreed to dismiss the allegations of Petitioner's prior convictions. (Doc. 2-12 at 7.) The trial court accepted Petitioner's guilty plea. Id. at 15.

         Meanwhile, in August 2013, the trial court sentenced Petitioner to concurrent terms of 1.1 years' incarceration on his four (4) forgery convictions. (Doc. 12-2 at 70-71.) In February 2014, the trial court sentenced Petitioner to 6.5 years' incarceration on his trafficking in stolen property conviction. Id. at 78-79. The sentences were set to run concurrently. Id. at 58.

         After an unsuccessful attempt to withdraw from his plea agreement, the trial court sentenced Petitioner to a presumptive term of one (1) year imprisonment, to run concurrent to his sentences in the two other criminal matters. (Doc. 12-1 at 24-27, 29-30; Doc. 12-2 at 83-90.) Petitioner was credited with 339 days of presentence incarceration. (Doc. 12-2 at 88.) At sentencing the trial court stated:

As a result [of being credited with 339 days for presentence incarceration] this is a terminable sentence meaning that because of the presentence incarceration credit[, ] Mr. Beasley has effectively served the time for which he's being sentenced at this point in time.

Id.

         Petitioner filed a notice of post-conviction relief (PCR) and subsequent PCR petition pro se. (Doc. 12-1 at 46-48, 50-110.) The trial court denied the PCR petition. (Doc. 2-4 at 1-4.) Petitioner filed a petition for review pro se in the court of appeals. (Doc. 12-2 at 24-50.) The court of appeals granted review but denied relief. Id. at 53-56. Petitioner did not seek review in the Arizona Supreme Court. (Doc. 12-2 at 52.)

         On October 2, 2018, Petitioner filed his Petition raising four (4) grounds for relief. (Doc. 1.) Respondents filed their Answer arguing that the Petition is moot, that Grounds One, Two and Three of the Petition were waived by Petitioner's guilty plea, that Ground Two is non-cognizable and that Ground Four is meritless. (Doc. 12.) This Court determines that the Petition is moot and recommends dismissal on this ground.

         ANALYSIS

...


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.