Justia U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, convicted of murder, appealed the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Petitioner claimed that the trial court's ruling regarding the testing of a blood sample violated his constitutional rights to counsel and due process. The court concluded that the Supreme Court had not squarely addressed petitioner's claim or articulated a rule that clearly extended to the present case; the California Court of Appeal's decision therefore could not be said to have unreasonably applied clearly established federal law under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act; and, therefore, the court deferred to the state court and affirmed the conviction. View "Varghese v. Uribe, Jr., et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico admitted to the United States in 1976 as a lawful permanent resident, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision affirming an IJ's decision that he was ineligible for relief from removal under former Immigration and Naturalization Act 212(c), 8 U.S.C. 1182(c), because his conviction for an aggravated felony was the result of a trial. The court concluded that Vartelas v. Holder made it clear that the essential inquiry of retroactivity analysis was to determine whether the new law attached new legal consequences to completed conduct and that evidence regarding reliance was not required to prove that a new law was impermissibly retroactive. The repeal of section 212(c) relief impermissibly attached new legal consequences to the trial convictions of aliens like petitioner by rendering these aliens ineligible for relief as a result of convictions that pre-dated the repeal of section 212(c). Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review, vacated the BIA's order, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Cardenas-Delgado v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of illegal reentry. The court concluded, inter alia, that the district court violated the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3162(a)(2); the district court abused its discretion in granting the government's motion to reopen its case-in-chief to introduce defendant's mother's naturalization certificate; and defendant was clearly prejudiced by the district court's leniency in allowing the prosecution to fill the gaps it had left in its case. Accordingly, the court vacated the conviction and remanded for an evidentiary hearing into whether the prosecution's failure to disclose the certificate in discovery or at any point before the proofs had closed was willful; and, if it was willful, the district court shall impose appropriate sanctions. View "United States v. Hernandez-Meza" on Justia Law

The Committee filed suit seeking a declaration that certain portions of a Montana statute making it a criminal offense for any political party to "endorse, contribute to, or make an expenditure to support or oppose a judicial candidate" in a nonpartisan judicial election, Mont. Code Ann. 13-35-231, were unconstitutional and requesting an injunction against its enforcement. The court concluded that, to the extent appellants challenged the permanent injunction against enforcement of section 13-35-231's ban on endorsements and expenditures, the court was bound to follow its published decision finding those provisions unconstitutional. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's entry of a permanent injunction as it pertains to those portions of the statute. However, the district court mistakenly entered a permanent injunction against the enforcement of section 13-35-231 in its entirety. Accordingly, the court remanded to the district court with instructions to revise the permanent injunction so that it enjoined only the statute's ban on endorsements and expenditures, and not the statute's ban on contributions. View "Sanders Cnty. Republican Cent. Comm. v. Fox, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner is serving a sentence of 25 years to life under California's three-strikes law. In 2000, petitioner had pleaded no contest to making criminal threats with the understanding that the conviction did not count as a "strike" under the three-strikes law. On appeal, petitioner challenged the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus because the making criminal threats conviction used to enhance his sentence was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights. The court concluded that petitioner fully served the sentence he received for the 2000 conviction, so he was no longer "in custody" on that conviction," but he was "in custody" under the 2008 sentence, the constitutionality of which the district court could review under 28 U.S.C. 2254(a). The court held that when a defendant could not be faulted for failing to obtain timely review of a constitutional challenge to an expired prior conviction, and that conviction was used to enhance his sentence for a later offense, he could challenge the enhanced sentence under section 2254 on the ground that the prior conviction was unconstitutionally obtained. Therefore, petitioner could challenge the constitutional validity of his 2000 criminal threats conviction, provided he had satisfied the procedural prerequisites for obtaining relief under the statute. Accordingly, the court reverse and remanded. View "Dubrin v. State of California" on Justia Law

Defendant, a Mexican citizen, appealed his conviction for being an alien who, after having been removed on five occasions, was "found in" the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326. Defendant had already been convicted in 2009 for violating section 1326 based on the same 2006 removal order that formed the predicate for the conviction in this case. The court concluded, inter alia, that the government introduced sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction where it introduced ample proof of the statutory elements at trial and defendant did not contend otherwise; the court rejected defendant's contention that, in analyzing his double jeopardy defense, the court was limited to reviewing the evidence presented by the jury; there was no error, much less plain error, in the district court's refusal to vacate defendant's conviction based on a double jeopardy defense he never raised; and an immigration officer's failure to inform him of his ability to request withdrawal of his application for admission did not violate his due process rights. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Sanchez-Aguilar" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to one count of income tax evasion and three counts of wire fraud. Petitioner, the victim of defendant's crimes, petitioned for a writ of mandamus pursuant to The Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. 3771. The court concluded that petitioner's request for restitution was not yet ripe. Because defendant's sentencing was still pending, petitioner was not currently entitled to restitution. Accordingly, the court denied the petition. View "In re: Stake Center Locating, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus, contending that subjecting defendant to retrial for felony murder violated the Double Jeopardy Clause because a jury earlier had impliedly acquitted him of the robbery underlying the felony murder charge. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the Arizona Court of Appeals' holding that double jeopardy did not bar petitioner's retrial was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court. View "Lemke v. Ryan" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of her habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241. At issue was whether aliens who were removable, but not yet subject to a removal order, were "in custody" for purposes of section 2241. The court held that they were not. In this case, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider petitioner's habeas petition because she was not in custody for purposes of section 2241. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's order denying the petition and dismissed the case. View "Veltmann-Barragan v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of first degree murder, kidnapping, robbery, and theft, appealed the denial of his habeas petition. The court, inter alia, concluded on the merits, without reaching the procedural default issue, that petitioner's Brady v. Maryland claim regarding the state's suppression of the codefendant's notes failed because petitioner could not establish that the allegedly suppressed evidence was material to the guilty verdict. Petitioner's claim regarding the state's alleged suppression of omitted photographs was procedurally defaulted. On the merits, petitioner's claim that the detective knowingly presented false testimony in violation of Napue v. Illinois was rejected because petitioner failed to establish that the detective knowingly provided false testimony during trial. The court granted petitioner's motion to expand the certificate of appealability to cover his causal nexus claim; denied petitioner's motion to expand the certificate of appealability to cover his juror misconduct claim; and affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief. View "Henry v. Ryan" on Justia Law