Garcia v. Ryan
Decision Date | 22 August 2018 |
Docket Number | No. CIV 15-322-TUC-CKJ (JR),CIV 15-322-TUC-CKJ (JR) |
Parties | Manuel Luis Garcia, Petitioner, v. Charles L. Ryan, et al., Respondents. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Arizona |
On October 23, 2017, Magistrate Judge Jacqueline M. Rateau issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16) in which she recommended that the Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody filed by Manuel Luis Garcia ("Garcia") be denied. The magistrate judge advised the parties that written objections to the Report and Recommendation ("R & R") were to be filed within fourteen days of service of a copy of the Report and Recommendation.
This Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Further, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), if a party makes a timely objection to a magistrate judge's recommendation, then this Court is required to "make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made." See also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D.Ariz. 2003) ( ); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir.2003) ( ).
Garcia summarizes his objections as follows:
First, the Court misconstrued the holding in certain cases that a finding of ineffective assistance can be made with no consideration of the issues presented if the evidence presumptively precludes any finding contrary to guilt. Second, the facts pertaining to Mr. Garcia's alibi were insufficiently considered, denying a fair and meaningful review of that issue. Third, the Court erred in totally ignoring the severance issue that could have changed the outcome as to some or all of charges.
The Court adopts those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which Garcia has not specifically objected.
A federal court is not to grant habeas relief with respect to "any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings" unless the state decision was (1) "contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law," as determined by the United States Supreme Court; or (2) "based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). See e.g. Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 97-8 (2011) ().
To establish an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a movant must prove: (1) counsel's performance was deficient, and (2) movant was prejudiced by such deficiency. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687. As to the first prong, there is a strong presumption defense counsel's performance was sufficiently effective. Id. at 689. A movant must show counsel's performance was "outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance." Id. at 690. Counsel's representation must fall "below an objective standard of reasonableness." Stanley v. Cullen, 633 F.3d 852, 862 (9th Cir.2011). A court is to inquire "whether counsel's assistance was reasonable considering all the circumstances" at the time of the assistance. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689.
As to the second prong, a habeas petitioner must demonstrate a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Id. at 694. A "reasonable probability" is a "probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome." Id. at 695. Both prongs of the ineffective assistance test need not be addressed if the claim can be disposed of on one prong. Id. at 697. According to the Supreme Court:
Garcia argues that a court must conduct at least a brief review of each issue to follow the dictates of Strickland to determine how the errors, if true, would have affected a determination of prejudice. As previously stated, a determination of whether prejudice has been shown requires consideration of whether there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. The magistrate judge similarly summarized this prejudice standard. R & R (Doc. 16), p. 9. The magistrate judge discussed the strength of the government's case; in this discussion the magistrate judge discussed some of the claims raised by Garcia. In concluding prejudice had not been shown, the magistrate judge implicitly considered whether there was a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.
The Court agrees with the magistrate judge that the government's case was strong. Further, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge that the result of the proceeding would not have been different even if Garcia's claims were determined to be true. Garcia asserts counsel was ineffective as follows:
As to Garcia's ineffective assistance of counsel claims, except for the alibi and severance issues, the post-conviction court stated:
As to the remainder of Defendant's issues with trial counsel's performance, this Court believes that the decisions made could be considered to discretionary, tactical decisions. For example, Defendant argues that counsel should have objected to the State's invocation of the rape shield law. Defendant has not shown a likelihood of success on the objection and regardless of whether Defendant was denied the opportunity to examine the victim as to her sexual history, the defense presented its own DNA expert, Melissa Beddow, who was allowed to discuss the presence of DNA on the 2007 victim's underwear that matched neither the Defendant nor the victim. This Court cannot conclude that Defendant was prejudiced by counsel's failure to object to the invocation of the rape shield law.
Response, Ex. LL (Doc. 12-8), p. 5. The court also states that the case "involved a two-week trial and upon review of the evidence as a whole, this Court concludes that trial counsel was not ineffective." Id. at 6. In adopting the post-conviction court's ruling, the Court of Appeals of Arizona stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial