Carrillo v. Ryan, 4:14-cv-02325

Background

Carrillo was convicted by jury on five counts of aggravated DUI and sentenced to concurrent 11-year terms; one count was later vacated on appeal as a lesser‑included offense.
On direct appeal he challenged the trial court’s disclosure of prior DUIs during voir dire, denial of a mistrial, and denial of a for‑cause challenge to the jury panel; the appellate court rejected the disclosure claims but vacated one count.
In state post‑conviction proceedings (PCR) Carrillo raised several claims including ineffective assistance (limited in scope) and a Fourth Amendment challenge to warrantless blood draw; the trial court dismissed many claims as precluded under Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a), and the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed.
Carrillo filed a federal habeas petition raising: (I) multiple new ineffective‑assistance‑of‑trial‑counsel theories; (II) warrantless blood draw (Fourth Amendment); (III) due process/fair trial based on voir dire disclosure of priors and denial of mistrial/for‑cause challenges; and (IV) post‑arrest custodial questioning/Miranda claims.
The Magistrate Judge found Grounds I, II, and IV procedurally defaulted for failure to fairly present the specific federal claims to the state courts and because state rules now bar return to state court; Carrillo offered no cause, prejudice, or actual‑innocence gateway.
Alternatively, Ground III (jury impartiality/voir dire) was rejected on the merits: the court found voir dire and remedial instructions adequate, biased jurors were excused or not seated, and the selected jurors indicated they could be impartial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ground I — Ineffective assistance (various new failures)	Carrillo: trial counsel failed to inform him of trial date, investigate, discuss charges/strategy, use peremptories, and present diminished‑capacity defense	Respondents: these specific ineffective‑assistance allegations were not fairly presented to state courts; therefore unexhausted and now procedurally barred	Procedurally defaulted — dismissed for failure to exhaust and no excuse (cause/prejudice or actual innocence)
Ground II — Warrantless blood draw (Fourth Amendment)	Carrillo: blood was drawn without a warrant, violating Fourth Amendment	Respondents: claim was raised in PCR but held precluded under Arizona procedural rule 32.2(a)(3); state procedural bar is independent and adequate	Procedurally defaulted — dismissed because state court preclusion bars federal review and no excuse shown
Ground III — Due process/fair trial from voir dire disclosure of priors; denial of mistrial/for‑cause challenge	Carrillo: court’s voir dire disclosure and refusal to grant mistrial / excuse panel members deprived him of an impartial jury and due process	Respondents: Carrillo did not fairly present a federal constitutional claim on appeal (cited state law only), so claim is defaulted; alternatively, claim lacks merit on de novo review	Procedurally defaulted if viewed as unexhausted; alternatively denied on the merits — voir dire and repeated judicial admonitions cured any prejudice; biased veniremembers were excused or not seated
Ground IV — Post‑arrest questioning / Miranda	Carrillo: custodial hospital questioning violated Miranda and his rights	Respondents: claim was not fairly presented to state courts; related PCR argument only asserted counsel’s ineffective assistance for not raising suppression — distinct claim	Procedurally defaulted — dismissed for failure to present the federal claim to state courts and no excuse shown

Key Cases Cited

Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (procedural default and exhaustion doctrine)
O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (1999) (fair presentation to state courts requirement)
Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27 (2004) (prisoner must alert state court to federal nature of claims)
Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794 (1975) (juror exposure to defendant’s prior convictions does not alone require reversal)
Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (1961) (pretrial publicity and juror prejudice analysis)
Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010) (impartial jury standard and voir dire discretion)
Mu’min v. Virginia, 500 U.S. 415 (1991) (voir dire and pretrial publicity principles)
Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025 (1984) (standard for juror impartiality)
Weeks v. Angelone, 528 U.S. 225 (2000) (presumption that juries follow court instructions)