King v. The People of the State of California
Filing
20
ORDER LIFTING STAY; DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 2/15/12. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/15/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9
BERNARD A. KING,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
No. C 05-3666 WHA (PR)
Petitioner,
ORDER LIFTING STAY; DENYING
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS; DENYING
CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY
v.
GEORGE M. GALAZA, Warden,
Respondent.
/
14
15
This is a habeas case filed pro se by a state prisoner. The case was stayed in 2008 and
16
administratively closed. Good cause appearing, the stay is LIFTED, and for the reasons
17
discussed below, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.
18
The only remaining issue in the case is whether the sentencing court violated
19
Cunningham v. California, 127 S. Ct. 856, 871 (2007), in imposing an upper term and
20
consecutive sentences. In the answer, respondent argues that facts relied upon by the state trial
21
court to impose the upper term – namely that petitioner was on parole at the time of the offense
22
and had a prior grant of probation revoked – fell within the “prior conviction” exception to the
23
Cunningham rule that sentencing facts must be found by a jury rather than the court. Such
24
arguments were rejected in Butler v. Curry, 528 F.3d 624 (9th Cir. 2008), and later in Estrella v.
25
Ollison, No.10-56203, slip op. 21495, 21500 (9th Cir. Dec. 29, 2011). However, because there
26
has been no such holding from the United States Supreme Court, and other courts have held to
27
the contrary, the Ninth Circuit has determined that it is not an unreasonable application of
28
clearly established Supreme Court authority within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1) for a
1
state court to find that such facts fall within the “prior conviction” exception to the Cunningham
2
rule. Kessee v. Mendoza-Powers, 574 F.3d 675, 678 (9th Cir. 2009). Consequently, federal
3
habeas relief is not warranted under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1) based upon petitioner’s claim of
4
Cunningham error.
5
Petitioner’s claim also fails for an alternative reason. Even if there were Cunningham
error, and therefore is subject to harmless-error analysis. Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S.
8
212, 221-22 (2006). The error is harmless unless it had a “substantial and injurious effect” on
9
the sentence. See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993). The fact that petitioner had
10
prior convictions, was on parole at the time of the offense, and had prior probations revoked,
11
For the Northern District of California
error, such error was harmless. Failure to submit a sentencing factor to the jury is not structural
7
United States District Court
6
was demonstrated at sentencing by petitioner’s probation report. These facts were not disputed
12
or contradicted by any other evidence at sentencing, nor is there any dispute about the truth of
13
these facts here. Under California law, any one of these facts is sufficient on its own to support
14
imposing the upper term. See Cal. Rule Ct. 421(a). Under these circumstances it is very likely
15
that the jury would have found factors supporting the upper term if they and not the trial judge
16
had been charged with that decision. Consequently, even if there was error under Cunningham,
17
such error did not have a substantial and injurious effect on the sentence petitioner received, and
18
federal habeas relief is not warranted on this claim.
19
For these reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. A certificate of
20
appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). This is not a case in which “reasonable
21
jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.”
22
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
23
The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of respondent and close the file.
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
Dated: February
15
, 2012.
26
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
27
28
G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.05\KING666.RUL.wpd
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?