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

Petitioner, a death row inmate, appealed the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254 and the denial of his motion to vacate the judgment under F.R.C.P. 60(b). The court dismissed the habeas appeal because petitioner's notice of appeal was not timely filed under F.R.A.P. 4(a)(1)(A), a mandatory and jurisdictional limit; the court held that petitioner’s motion for a certificate of appealability cannot be construed as a motion for an extension of time under Rule 4(a)(1)(A); the court affirmed the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion because the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that in this case, a Rule 60(b) motion is not available for the purpose of extending the time allowed to file an appeal; the court held that where a party files a Rule 60(b) motion solely to render a notice of appeal timely, and the motion seeks relief on grounds identical to those offered by Rule 4(a), Rule 60(b) motions may not be used to escape the time limits for appeal; and therefore, the court did not reach the question of whether the district court erred in denying the habeas petition. View "Washington v. Ryan" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of attempted rape, appealed the district court's denial of his federal habeas petition. Petitioner claimed that the Idaho trial court violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment right to be free from unlawful searches and seizures. The Supreme Court held in Stone v. Powell that “where the State has provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim, a state prisoner may not be granted federal habeas corpus relief on the ground that evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search or seizure was introduced at his trial.” The court concluded that the Stone v. Powell doctrine survives the passage of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. 2254, and therefore bars petitioner’s claim because he had a full and fair opportunity in state court to litigate his Fourth Amendment claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Newman v. Wengler" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for being a removed alien found in the United States and for making a false claim of United States citizenship. The court concluded that the admission of Border Patrol agents' affidavit into evidence was error because it constituted a testimonial statement and the government failed to call the agents to testify; the admission of the evidence constituted plain error but did not affect defendant's substantial rights; the prosecutor’s remarks - inferring that defendant's delayed birth registration was a forgery - during his closing argument do not constitute error, much less plain error; and defendant failed to demonstrate cumulative error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Macias" on Justia Law

Defendant, a registered investment advisor and securities agent, appealed his conviction and sentence for wire fraud and money laundering. Defendant's conviction stemmed from his involvement in a scheme to defraud his clients. The court concluded that defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated by the district court’s decision to proceed with victim allocution in the absence of trial counsel during a portion of defendant’s critical sentencing stage. The court concluded that the denial of counsel during a portion of the allocution phase of the sentencing proceeding was structural error, that the error was complete when the right to counsel was denied, and that no additional showing of prejudice was required. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Because the trial court committed structural error by proceeding with victim allocution while defense counsel was not present, and because the victim’s statements were highly significant in the judge’s sentencing consideration, reassignment to a different district judge is advisable to preserve the appearance of justice. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Yamashiro" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326. Defendant contended that the government engaged in improper questioning or vouching during his trial. The court concluded that the prosecutor’s isolated question in response to plaintiff’s spontaneous challenge to a Border Patrol agent’s veracity during extensive cross-examination does not rise to the level of plain error as reflected in the court's precedent; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a curative instruction during the prosecutor’s rebuttal argument, as it granted defendant’s motion to strike and instructed the jury to disregard the prosecutor’s comment that the border patrol agents were “sworn to uphold the law;” any prejudice stemming from the government’s comment was cured by the district court’s instruction and no additional curative instruction was required; and it is highly unlikely that the prosecutor’s comment materially affected the verdict. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Alcantara-Castillo" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for aggravated identity theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1028A, contending that he did not use his twin brother's passport "without lawful authority" because he had permission to use it. The court held that, despite its title, section 1028A does not require theft as an element of the offense. Because the court concluded that the statutory text is unambiguous, consistent with the majority of its sister circuits, the court rejected petitioner's argument that section 1028A requires evidence that defendant stole the means of identification at issue. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Osuna-Alvarez" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of murder and sentenced to death, appealed the denial of his habeas corpus petition. Petitioner sought relief based on the ineffective assistance of counsel, claiming that counsel presented a flawed alibi defense, failed to challenge the torture special circumstance, presented no evidence of mental impairments at the guilt or penalty phase; and created a conflict of interest by diverting state-paid defense funds for personal use. The court held that counsel provided constitutionally deficient representation at the guilt phase, but petitioner did not suffer the requisite prejudice to the guilt verdict as a result. With regard to the penalty phase, however, petitioner was both deprived of the representation guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment and so substantially prejudiced by the constitutionally deficient deprivation of adequate representation at both stages that it was unreasonable for the state court to have left the death penalty in place. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court remanded with instructions to grant the petition with respect to the penalty phase and return the case to the state court to reduce petitioner's sentence to life without parole, unless the State elects to pursue a new capital sentencing proceeding. View "Bemore v. Chappell" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of first degree murder, appealed the denial of her habeas corpus petition. At issue are eleven claims that the state court found to be procedurally barred under the Dixon rule, which prohibits California state courts from considering habeas claims that should have been raised on direct appeal but were omitted. The court held that the state failed to meet its burden of proving the Dixon bar’s adequacy at the time of petitioner's procedural default where the only evidence was that the Dixon bar was applied to between seven and twenty-one percent of all habeas cases filed in the months surrounding petitioner's default. Such a statistic, without more, is incomplete. Because a state procedural rule must be both independent and adequate to prevent federal habeas review, the court need not decide whether Dixon is an independent state law ground. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court denying the habeas corpus petition. View "Lee v. Jacquez" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of first degree murder, appealed the denial of his habeas corpus petition, arguing in part that his trial counsel’s failure to object to egregious prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument constituted ineffective assistance of counsel substantially affecting the outcome of his trial. The court concluded that the prosecutorial misconduct claim was procedurally defaulted. However, the court concluded that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor's inflammatory, fabricated, and ethnically charged epithets, delivered in the moments before the jury was sent to deliberate defendant's case. The state court's conclusion to the contrary was an unreasonable application of controlling Supreme Court law. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with instructions to grant the petition. View "Zapata v. Vasquez" on Justia Law

Defendant, a citizen of Mexico, appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss an information charging him with being an alien found in the United States after he was removed in 2004. The court concluded that because petitioner has failed to carry his burden of showing a grant of relief was “plausible,” he has not demonstrated that any error on the part of the IJ in informing him of the availability of voluntary departure prejudiced him. Defendant has not demonstrated that the removal order is fundamentally unfair under section 1326(d)(3) because he suffered prejudice as a result of the defects in the deportation proceeding. Because defendant has not met all of the requirements of section 1326(d), he may not collaterally attack his deportation order. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Gonzalez-Flores" on Justia Law