Michael Ray Weeks v. CHARLES L. RYAN, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF ARIZONA

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL RAY WEEKS,
Petitioner/Appellant,
v.
CHARLES L. RYAN, Warden;
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE
OF ARIZONA,
Respondents/Appellees.
No. 17-17133
D.C. No. 4:14cv02283-DCB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 9, 2018
San Francisco, California
Before: TASHIMA and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and HINKLE,**
District Judge
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as
provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Robert L. Hinkle, United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Florida, sitting by designation.
FILED
OCT 31 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

Michael Ray Weeks stood trial in an Arizona state court on multiple counts
of sexual assault, aggravated assault, and kidnapping. He testified and showed no
signs of incompetence while testifying or at any other stage of the proceeding. He
did not ask for, and the trial court did not conduct, a competency hearing. The jury
convicted Mr. Weeks on all counts but one. He appealed but did not raise any issue
related to competence. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed.
On state collateral review, Mr. Weeks asserted, among other things, that he
was incompetent during the trial, that the trial court should have conducted a
competency hearing, and that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance by failing
to adequately investigate and assert Mr. Weeks’s incompetence. After an
evidentiary hearing, the trial court rejected the claims on the merits, finding as a
fact that Mr. Weeks was competent during the trial. The Arizona Court of Appeals
upheld the merits ruling on the ineffective-assistance claim. The court did not
reach the merits of the incompetency claims. Instead, the court held that those
claims were “waived” under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(a)(3)
because they were not raised on direct appeal.
Mr. Weeks filed this federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2254. The district court held that Mr. Weeks procedurally defaulted the
incompetency claims. The court upheld the merits ruling on the ineffective-
assistance claim based on the deferential standard of review. See 28 U.S.C.

-- 2 of 3 --

§ 2254(d)(1)–(2). The court issued a certificate of appealability on the
incompetency claims but not on the ineffective-assistance claim. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 2253, and we affirm.
The district court’s ruling was correct. In Martinez-Villareal v. Lewis, 80
F.3d 1301, 1306-07 (9th Cir. 1996), we held that an Arizona court’s application of
its waiver rule, Rule 32.2(a), to an incompetency claim was an independent and
adequate state ground that precluded federal habeas review absent a showing of
cause and prejudice. The decision is controlling. Mr. Weeks, like the petitioner
there, has not shown cause. This makes it unnecessary to decide whether he has
shown prejudice.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --