Richardson 117721 v. Thornell
2:23-cv-02517
| D. Ariz. | Jan 28, 2025Background
- Petitioner Damon Eli Richardson filed a federal habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his Arizona conviction.
- The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommended denial and dismissal of Richardson’s claims, finding some lacked merit and others were procedurally defaulted.
- The district court reviewed the petition, objections, R&R, and relevant state court decisions de novo.
- Several claims were denied for lack of federal law violation or unreasonable application of facts/law by the Arizona Court of Appeals.
- Procedurally defaulted claims were ones Richardson had not raised as federal issues or exhausted in state court, and he was now procedurally barred from doing so.
- The district court overruled all of Richardson’s objections, denied a Certificate of Appealability, and dismissed the habeas petition with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady violation (Ground One) | State withheld exculpatory text messages | No Brady violation—Petitioner knew of messages | No violation; claim denied |
| Double jeopardy (Ground Two) | Multiple convictions violate double jeopardy | Each image is a separate offense under Arizona law | Multiple convictions proper; claim denied |
| Prosecutorial misconduct (G4) | Threatened re-indictment was unconstitutional | Threat was permissible; prosecution for more serious | No due process violation; claim denied |
| Ineffective assistance (G8) | Counsel failed to investigate exculpatory evidence | No specific misconduct; disclosure wouldn't change plea | No ineffective assistance; claim denied |
| Procedural default (G3,5,6,9) | No delay tactics; should be allowed to exhaust claims | Claims unexhausted and now barred in state court | Claims dismissed as procedurally defaulted |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose material exculpatory evidence to the defendant)
- United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976) (Brady does not require disclosure of information the defendant already knows)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes the two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Berger, 134 P.3d 378 (Ariz. 2006) (possession of each exploitative image is a distinct criminal act under Arizona law)