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

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of a habeas corpus petition challenging petitioner's California conviction for second degree murder. The panel held that the state court unreasonably applied Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and related cases in holding that a detective ceased interrogation and that petitioner's waiver of the right of counsel was valid. In this case, the only reasonable interpretation of what occurred between petitioner and the interrogating detective was that the detective continued interrogating petitioner after petitioner had clearly – and repeatedly – invoked his right to counsel, and that the detective badgered petitioner into waiving that right. View "Martinez v. Cate" on Justia Law

In light of Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018), and recent case law from this Circuit, California robbery is no longer a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. 16(a) or 16(b). The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's order denying defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea for illegally reentering the United States after having been deported and after having been convicted of an aggravated felony. The panel held that, in light of this marked shift in the law governing crime-of-violence analysis, defendant had a plausible ground for dismissal of the indictment and thus demonstrated a fair and just reason for withdrawing his guilty plea. View "United States v. Garcia-Lopez" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the denial of a 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for habeas relief challenging petitioner's conviction for domestic violence, assault, and vandalism. The panel held that it was error for the state trial judge not to sua sponte order a competency hearing given the numerous signs of petitioner's mental incompetency, including his suicide attempt on the eve of trial. The panel remanded to the district court with instructions to grant the writ unless, within a reasonable time, the state grants a new trial. The panel need not address petitioner's other issues and dismissed his appeals as moot. View "Anderson v. Gipson" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed defendant's conviction for possession of unauthorized access devices and aggravated identity theft, holding that the district court erred by failing to excuse a juror for cause under an actual bias theory. The panel held that when a juror was unable to state that she would serve fairly and impartially despite being asked repeatedly for such assurances, the panel could have no confidence that the juror would lay aside her biases or her prejudicial personal experiences and render a fair and impartial verdict. In this case, there was concern about whether Juror No. 3 could put her social security theft five years ago out of her mind. View "United States v. Kechedzian" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress a handgun found in his backpack. The panel held that the district court properly concluded that the handgun inevitably would have been discovered in an inventory search at the time of booking.The panel reversed defendant's 48 month sentence, holding that defendant's prior first degree robbery conviction under Washington law was not a crime of violence under USSG 2K2.1(a)(2) and 4B1.2. The panel held that Washington's robbery statute was not a categorical match for the offenses of robbery and extortion enumerated in section 4B1.2(a)(2). However, the panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying a two-level enhancement for reckless endangerment during flight under USSG 3C1.2. View "United States v. Peterson" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress narcotics that border patrol agents found in defendant's vehicle. The panel held that, given the totality of the circumstances, the agents had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting defendant was engaged in criminal activity and had reasonable suspicion to stop him. The panel also affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's request for the court to take judicial notice of other border patrol stops. View "United States v. Raygoza-Garcia" on Justia Law

Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights protected in Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968), do not extend to statements that are nontestimonial. Petitioner appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for habeas relief, challenging his California conviction for premeditated attempted murder, possession of a shank in jail, and participation in a criminal street gang.The panel affirmed the district court's judgment as to petitioner's Bruton claim. The panel held that, because the codefendant statement at issue was nontestimonial and thus not within the Confrontation Clause's protection under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68 (2004), the Bruton protections concerning the introduction of statements by non-testifying codefendants did not apply. The panel reversed, however, the district court's denial of the habeas petition as to the sufficiency of the evidence under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979), on one of the three offenses for which petitioner was convicted, possession of a dirk or dagger or sharp instrument in jail. View "Lucero v. Holland" on Justia Law

Where a state statute contains two layers of disjunctive lists, the analysis outlined in Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990), for applying the categorical approach, applies to both layers of the statute and must be performed twice. A methamphetamine conviction under California Health & Safety Code 11378 or 11379(a) does not qualify as a controlled substance offense under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i).The Ninth Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's order finding petitioner removable for a controlled substance offense. The panel held that the California definition of methamphetamine was broader than the federal definition. The panel also held that the methamphetamine element applicable to a conviction under sections 11378 or 11379(a) was not divisible, because the different varieties of methamphetamine covered by California law were alternative means of committing a single crime rather than alternative elements of separate crimes. Therefore, the panel did not apply the modified categorical approach. View "Atenia Lorenzo v. Sessions" on Justia Law

California's receipt of stolen property offense is a categorical match for the generic federal crime of receipt of stolen property. The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for attempting to reenter the United States after being deported, holding that defendant's prior California conviction for receipt of stolen property was a felony theft offense that was an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Naturalization Act. The panel also held that the district court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment and rejected defendant's remaining claims. View "United States v. Flores" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's decision finding petitioner ineligible for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. The panel held that petitioner's convictions for indecent exposure under Wash. Rev. Code 9A.88.010(1) and under Wash. Rev. Code 9A.88.010(2)(b) are not categorically crimes involving moral turpitude. Furthermore, both statutes were indivisible and thus the modified categorical approach was inapplicable. In the absence of a conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude, petitioner was eligible to apply for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. The panel remanded for the BIA to consider anew petitioner's request for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. View "Barrera-Lima v. Sessions" on Justia Law