Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Michael Lee Crane, Petitioner v. David Shinn, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, et al.

Supreme Court briefJun 10, 2020

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

<\?pfrMcvry, a

................VA^XT^ _. COWART -FOR AtoOkiA

S^Vf>ksMzr \o arl\<\... ................

Z.c*&e^\X\ n - ^-OH^yi

r'lWA

__........

Case 2:19-cv-04327-JJT-JFM Document 9 Filed 09/10/19 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Michael Lee Crane,

Petitioner,

Charles L Ryan, et al.,

NO. CV-19-04327-PHX-JJT (JFM)

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

Respondents.

Decision by Court. This action came for consideration before the Court. The

issues have been considered and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that pursuant to the Court’s Order filed

September 10, 2019, Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

28 U. S. C. § 2254 is denied,

dismissed without prejudice.

Petitioner to take nothing and this action is hereby

Brian D. Karth

District Court Executive/Clerk of Court

September 10, 2019

s/ S. Quinones

Deputy Clerk

Case 2:19-cv-04327-JJT-JFM Documents Filed 09/10/19 Page lot 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Michael Lee Crane,

No. CV 19-04327-PHX-JJT(JFM)

Petitioner,

State of Arizona, et al.,

ORDER

Respondents.

On May 30, 2019, Petitioner Michael Lee Crane, who is confined in the Arizona

State Prison Complex-Eyman, filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). In a June 14, 2019 Order, the Court gave Petitioner 30 days

to either pay the $5.00 filing fee required in habeas corpus actions or file an in forma

pauperis application. On June 25, 2019, Petitioner filed a Motion for Extension of Time,

seeking an additional 30 days in which to comply with the Court’s June 14, 2019 Order.

On July 11, 2019, Petitioner paid the $5.00 filing fee. The Court will deny the Motion for

Extension of Time and dismiss the Petition without prejudice.

Petition

After pleading guilty, Petitioner was convicted in Maricopa County Superior Court,

case #CR 2012-107176, of three counts of first-degree murder, three counts of kidnapping,

two counts of first-degree burglary, three counts of arson, three counts of armed robbery,

and one count of theft of means of transportation. On March 25, 2019, he was sentenced to

multiple concurrent and consecutive terms of imprisonment, the longest of which are terms

Cej-V i o r a v'

Case 2:19-cv-04327-JJT~JFM Documents Filed 09/10/19 Page 2 of 4

of natural life.1 In his Petition, Petitioner names Charles L. Ryan as Respondent and the

Arizona Attorney General as an Additional Respondent. Petitioner raises fifteen grounds

for relief.

In Grounds One, Two, and Three, he alleges that he was arrested without a “warrant

supported by oath or affirmation particularly describing the place to be searched, and the

persons or things to be seized,” in violation of his Fourth Amendment (Ground One) and

Fifth Amendment (Grounds Two and Three) rights.

In Ground Four, Petitioner claims that his Fifth Amendment rights were violated

when he was charged with two counts of first-degree murder in the absence of a grand jury

indictment.

In Ground Five, Petitioner alleges that his due process rights were violated by the

trial court’s failure to “both recognize and enforce” the common law and Uniform

Commercial Code sections 1-308 and 1-103.

In Grounds Six and Seven, Petitioner alleges that his due process rights under the

Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated when he was charged as a “public

officer.”

In Ground Eight, Petitioner alleges that his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due

process rights were violated when he was convicted of violating a statute that is

unconstitutionally vague.

In Ground Nine, Petitioner alleges that his Fifth and Eighth Amendment rights were

violated by the imposition of an excessive bond or bail amount.

In Ground Ten, Petitioner claims that his First and Fifth Amendment rights were

violated when the trial court hindered his ability to speak on the public record.

In Ground Eleven, Petitioner alleges that his First and Fifth Amendment rights were

violated when the state refused to honor his request to “be left alone.”

In Ground Twelve, Petitioner alleges that his Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth

See http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/viewerDoc.asp?SadID=41372 (last

accessed Sept. 3, 2019).

-2-

Case 2:19-cv-04327-JJT~JFM Document 8 Filed 09/10/19 Page 3 of 4

Amendment rights were violated when he was convicted under a statute that is overly

vague and that had no application to him “as a private man and a ‘nonperson-nonresident’

‘national’ ‘state national’ and constitutional but non statutory citizen.”

In Ground Thirteen, Petitioner claims that the state exceeded its authority by

arresting Plaintiff at his home without a “warrant supported by oath or affirmation

particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

In Ground Fourteen, Petitioner alleges that the trial court “engaged in . .. fraud” by

refusing to clarify whether it was exercising admiralty jurisdiction.

In Ground Fifteen, Petitioner accuses the state of committing fraud when it coerced

him into entering a “fraudulent contract/plea agreement.”

II.

Discussion

Before the court may grant habeas relief to a state prisoner, the prisoner must

exhaust remedies available in the state courts. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1); O’Sullivan v.

Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999). An Arizona petitioner sentenced to less than the death

penalty may exhaust his federal claims by presenting them in a procedurally proper way to

the Arizona Court of Appeals on direct appeal and/or in post-conviction proceedings,

without seeking discretionary review in the Arizona Supreme Court. Crowell v. Knowles,

483 F. Supp. 2d 925, 928-30, 933 (D. Ariz. 2007) (following 1989 statutory amendment,

Arizona Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over criminal convictions involving less than a

death sentence); cf. Swoopes v. Sublett, 196 F.3d 1008, 1010 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing pre-

1989 statute). To exhaust a claim, a petitioner must describe “both the operative facts and

the federal legal theory on which his claim is based so that the state courts [could] have a

‘fair opportunity’ to apply controlling legal principles to the facts bearing upon his

constitutional claim.” Castillo v. McFadden, 399 F.3d 993, 999 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting

Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir. 2003), overruled in part on other grounds by

Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2007)). A failure to exhaust will subject a

petitioner to dismissal. See Gutierrez v. Griggs, 695 F.2d 1195, 1197 (9th Cir. 1983).

-3-

Case 2:19-cv-04327-JJT--JFM Document 8 Filed 09/10/19 Page 4 of 4

Petitioner states that he has not presented his grounds for relief to the Arizona Court

of Appeals or the Arizona Supreme Court.2 Thus, this habeas corpus action is premature,

and the Court will dismiss the case without prejudice.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1)

Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 6) is denied as moot.

(2)

Petitioner’s Petition for Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) and this case are dismissed

without prejudice.

(3)

The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly and close this case.

(4)

Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the

event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability

because reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

Dated this 10th day of September, 2019,

HorSrableTi

Unirea State:

f J. Tuchi

istrict Judge

2 As a pleading defendant, Petitioner may exhaust his federal claims in state court

by filing a Rule 32 of-right proceeding and then, if he is denied relief, a petition for review

in the Arizona Court of Appeals. If Petitioner is denied relief by the Arizona Court of

Appeals, he may then commence a new habeas corpus case in federal court.

Petitioner should be aware that there is a one-year statute of limitation to file an

application for habeas relief, which runs from the latter of “the date on which the [state

court] judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the

time for seeking such review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d¥l). A conviction and sentence become

final after judgment has been rendered, the availability of appeal exhausted, and the time

in which to file a petition for writ of certiorari has expired or a certiorari petition has been

denied. See e.g., Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327, 340 n. 4 (2007); Griffith v. Kentucky,

479 U.S. 314, 321 n.6 (1987). In addition, “[t]he time during which a properly filed

application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent

judgment or claim is pending” is not counted toward the period of limitation. 28 U.S.C. §

2244(d)(2).

-4-

__ _______

.______

/XPP^Xltyrl ft._____ _______________ _______________

APPALS.. .4^ .Ur^Lt)_^o.rsma

•■'Mo.

\°>-\wc\Sc\

P'EU&fr

^LA\q .^W

-hat-cr pka______

MA-EEM 3.0 3-O AO

Pv~\, C.«.rV\orc\r \

Case: 19-16939, 03/20/2020, ID: 11636729, DktEntry: 3, Page 1 of 1

FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

MAR 20 2020

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

MICHAEL LEE CRANE,

Petitioner-Appellant,

CHARLES L. RYAN; ATTORNEY

GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF

ARIZONA,

No.

19-16939

D.C. No. 2:19-cv-04327-JJT-JFM

District of Arizona,

Phoenix

ORDER

Respondents-Appellees.

Before:

CLIFTON and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

The request for a certificate of appealability (Docket Entry No. 2) is denied

because appellant has not shown that “jurists of reason would find it debatable

whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and

that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct

in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see also 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012).

Any pending motions are denied as moot.

DENIED.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.