Ring v. Ryan

• Decision Date: 22 January 2018
• Docket Number: CIV 16-04070-PHX-SPL (MHB)
• Citation: Ring v. Ryan, CIV 16-04070-PHX-SPL (MHB) (D. Ariz. Jan 22, 2018)
• Parties: Timothy Stuart Ring, Petitioner, v. Charles L. Ryan, et al., Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Arizona

Timothy Stuart Ring, Petitioner, v. Charles L. Ryan, et al., Respondents.

CIV 16-04070-PHX-SPL (MHB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

January 22, 2018

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE STEVEN P. LOGAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT:

Petitioner Timothy Stuart Ring, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex, Buckley Unit, in Buckeye, Arizona, has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). Respondents filed an Answer (Doc. 13), and Petitioner has filed a Reply (Doc. 14).

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was convicted following jury trial in Maricopa County Superior Court, case #CR1995-001754, of first degree felony murder, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, armed robbery, first degree burglary, and theft and was sentenced to death and lesser sentences. See State v. Ring, 25 P.3d 1139 (Ariz. 2001). Petitioner's conviction and sentences were affirmed by the Arizona Supreme Court. See id. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed and remanded regarding Petitioner's death sentence. See Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002). On September 5, 2003, the Arizona Supreme Court held that a finding that Petitioner committed the murder for pecuniary gain was not harmless error and remanded for resentencing. See State v. Ring, 76 P.3d 421 (Ariz. 2003). In July 2007, upon remand, the trial court resentenced Petitioner to a natural life term of imprisonment on the murder conviction pursuant to an agreement he entered with the State.

The Arizona Supreme Court described the facts of this case as follows:

¶2 At approximately 2:00 p.m. on November 28, 1994, a Wells Fargo armored van servicing Dillard's department store at Arrowhead Mall was reported missing by Dave Moss, the van's "hopper." At approximately 6:30 p.m. that same day, a Maricopa County Sheriff's deputy discovered the missing van in the parking lot of a Sun City church. All of the van's doors were locked, the engine was running, and a body was slumped over on the passenger side. The body was that of the van's driver, John Magoch, who had been killed by a gunshot wound to the head.

¶3 Wells Fargo determined that its losses from the robbery totaled $833,798.12, ofwhich $562,877.91 was in cash. Although no eyewitnesses to the crime came forward, one person riding his bicycle in Sun City on the afternoon of the robbery claimed to have seen a white van, followed by a red pick-up truck, run a stop sign. This witness stated that one man was driving the red truck while two people were in the van. Another witness also saw a white van followed by a red pick-up truck. Although she remembered one man driving the van, she testified that either two or three men were in the red truck.

¶4 Through information provided by an informant, the Glendale Police Department contacted Judy Espinoza, who believed that her boyfriend James Greenham and a friend of Greenham's named "Tim" may have been involved in the robbery. "Tim" later turned out to be Defendant—Timothy Ring. Glendale Police interviewed Espinoza on December 30, 1994. Espinoza stated that when she heard about the robbery on the radio, she remembered that a week before Greenham had asked her what she would do "if he hit an Armored car." Espinoza also remembered that, although Greenham had been staying with her, he was not at home on the night of the robbery and during that week he was "very stressed out." In addition, shortly after the robbery, Greenham handed Espinoza a bag of rolled coins totaling approximately $250 and gave Espinoza's mother $800 in cash to pay bills. Finally, Espinoza informed the police that Greenham's friend Tim owned a red truck. About a week before the interview with police, Greenham had stopped dating Espinoza and had moved out of her home.

¶5 While conducting surveillance of Greenham, the police noticed that he appeared to be riding a new motorcycle. Random phone calls to motorcycle dealerships revealed that, in December 1994, Greenham and Defendant made large cash purchases at Metro Motor Sports. Specifically, Defendant bought two ATVs and a motorcycle from the dealership for $7,500 and $7,300, respectively. Over the next several weeks, Defendant and Greenham both made many more expensive purchases, all of them cash transactions. Wiretaps on certain telephones belonging to Defendant and Greenham began on January 9, 1995. On January 21, 1995, Defendant called William Ferguson and discussed Greenham's purchase of a new truck, the trouble this caused with Greenham's ex-wife, and what impact that trouble might have on their plans "up north." In that call, Defendant threatened to "cut off" Greenham's supply, as Defendant held "both his and mine." The two also talked about disappearingfor two years after "up north happens," then reuniting in Las Vegas. Four days later, Ferguson bought a new motorcycle for $8,700 cash, paying in fifty and one-hundred dollar bills.

¶6 On January 26, 1995, Greenham called Defendant's pager and entered the following code: 20*2000*04. He followed that call with another code: 50*5000*04. In conversations between Defendant and Ferguson, Defendant had referred to Greenham as "zero four." Later that day, Defendant asked Greenham, "The two pages you sent ... those are your requests, is that right?" To which Greenham responded, "Yeah."

¶7 As part of the investigation of Defendant, arrangements were made with Waste Management Company to perform a "trash cover," enabling investigators to sort through and survey Defendant's waste. During this process, police acquired two notecards, written by Defendant, with addresses of businesses serviced by Loomis Armored Cars, as well as numbers corresponding to Loomis trucks. Defendant was employed by Loomis in 1988-89 and, at trial, claimed that the notecards pertained to his employment at that time.

¶8 The police then attempted to generate discussion between the conspirators about the robbery. On January 31, 1995, the police issued a news release that was aired on local television stations. Defendant called Greenham at approximately 10:30 that evening and left a message on Greenham's answering machine to "remind me to talk to you tomorrow and tell you what was on the news tonight. Very important, and also fairly good." A few days later, Detective Tom Clayton from the Glendale Police Department left his business card on the door of Greenham's residence, requesting that Greenham call and "refer to lead 176." In response, Greenham made an emotional, panicked telephone call to Defendant. Greenham also apparently called his ex-wife, who was so concerned about his well-being that she asked Phoenix Police to visit Greenham's apartment to check on him. Coincidentally, Defendant stopped by Greenham's apartment at the same time. Defendant later discussed this incident with Ferguson, telling him "I don't know what to think of it. Uhm, his house is clean. Mine, on the other hand, contains a very large bag." Later that same day, Defendant also said, "it doesn't really make a whole lot of sense, because given the information that they do have, both public and what I've been able to ascertain privately ... if they were gonna come after somebody, it would be me." Ferguson ended the call by saying that he would "keep a suitcase packed."

¶9 On February 14, 1995, the police again attempted to generate conversation by airing a "Silent Witness" re-enactment on the local news that contained several deliberately incorrect details about the robbery and murder. Defendant called Ferguson at 10:51 p.m. to talk about the broadcast. Ferguson claimed to have "laughed my ass off" and said he was "not real worried at all now." Defendant stated that "there's only one thing that slightly concerns me," and asked, "What if push comes to shove down the months and they ask for hair and fibers, so forth, and it happens to somehow...." Later in the conversation, Defendant said, "there was a couple of in continuities (sic) to their story.... They showed a suppressed revolver of all things."

¶10 Two days later, on February 16, 1995, a search warrant was served on Defendant's residence. Police found a homemade sound suppressor attached to a Ruger 1022 rifle barrel behind the hot water heater in a corner ofDefendant's garage. Also in the garage, inside a storage cabinet, police discovered a green duffel bag with Defendant's name on it. The bag contained bundles of United States currency totaling $271,681. Defendant also had $1,040 in a headboard in the master bedroom. In a notebook found in the same headboard, police discovered a post-it note that had the number "575,995" on it. Below the number was the word "splits," with the three letters "F," "Y," and "T," and numbers below the letters totaling 575,995, which is remarkably similar to the total cash amount taken in the robbery. An expert testified that this note was written by Defendant. Greenham's friends often called him "Yoda"; thus, argued the state, the "Y" represented Greenham, the "F" was for Ferguson, and the "T" stood for Defendant. A search warrant served on Ferguson's residence also turned up $62,601. Approximately $200 was found at Greenham's apartment.

¶11 In his own defense, Defendant claimed to have made more than $100,000 as a confidential informant for the FBI. However, an agent for that agency testified that Defendant was only paid a total of $458. In addition, Defendant testified that his income included money made as a bounty hunter and gunsmith. However, Defendant only made $3,500 working for Don's Bail Bonds in 1993 and while working one month for A-1 Bail Bonds in 1994 was paid $1,600.

Ring, 25 P.3d at 1142-44, ¶¶ 2-11 (Ariz. 2001) (footnotes and internal citations omitted).

Petitioner filed a notice of post-conviction relief (PCR) in September 2007. (Exh. E.) Petitioner's PCR petition raised two theories for relief, but alleged multiple claims under each theory: ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. (Exhs....