Romero v. Arizona, State of ( 2021 )

1 WO SC 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Greg Hernandez Romero, No. CV 21-08045-PCT-JAT (ESW) 10 Petitioner, 11 v. ORDER 12 State of Arizona, 13 Respondent. 14 15 Petitioner Greg Hernandez Romero, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison 16 Complex-Tucson, has filed a document captioned “Form 24(b). Notice Requesting Post- 17 Conviction Relief” and referring to Yavapai County Superior Court case 19-24576” 18 (hereafter, “Petition”) (Doc.1). To facilitate consideration of the document, the Clerk of 19 Court filed the document as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 20 2254. The Court will dismiss the Petition and this action. 21 I. Background 22 Petitioner was convicted pursuant to a plea agreement in Yavapai County Superior 23 Court, case P1300CR201900870, of one count of second-degree murder, and three counts 24 of aggravated assault.1 On December 4, 2020, Petitioner was sentenced to a term of 25 imprisonment of 35.75 years.2 26 27 1 See https://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/publicaccess/caselookup.aspx, Search Last Name Romero, First Name Greg, December 4, 2020 Minute Order (last accessed Mar. 3, 28 2021). 2 See n.1, supra. 1 II. Discussion 2 Petitioner may not obtain relief under the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure in 3 this federal district court. Rule 24 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, to which 4 “Form 24.b” appears to refer, addresses motions for new trial, motions to vacate judgment, 5 motions for modification of sentence, and motions concerning clerical errors. Ariz. R. 6 Crim. P. 24. If Petitioner intended to file the Petition as a motion in the state trial court, he 7 must resend Form 24.b to the appropriate state court, not this federal court. This federal 8 court lacks jurisdiction to grant relief as to the Petition. A federal district court is not a 9 court of appeal or review from a state superior court decision and must decline jurisdiction 10 whenever it is “in essence being called upon to review the state court decision.” Doe & 11 Assocs. Law Offices v. Napolitano, 252 F.3d 1026, 1030 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Because district 12 courts lack power to hear direct appeals from state court decisions, they must decline 13 jurisdiction whenever they are “in essence being called upon to review the state court 14 decision.”) (applying the Rooker-Feldman doctrine; see Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 15 413 (1923); Dist. of Columbia Ct. of App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983)). Therefore, 16 to the extent that Petitioner seeks any relief in his Petition, such relief will be denied, and 17 his Petition and this action dismissed.3 18 IT IS ORDERED: 19 (1) The Petition and this action are dismissed to the extent that any relief is 20 sought. (Doc.1.) 21 (2) The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 22 (3) Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the 23 event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability 24 because reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See 25 26 3 Petitioner may challenge his conviction and sentence as unconstitutional under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. However, Petitioner must first exhaust state court remedies. Rose v. Lundy, 27 455 U.S. 509 (1982) (prisoner attacking a state conviction must exhaust state remedies before a federal court will entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus). 28 1| Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 2 Dated this 12th day of March, 2021. 3 4 ' James A. Teilborg 6 Senior United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28