United States Ninth Circuit

Grant of a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which claimed that petitioner's Sixth Amendment rights were violated when a California state trial court imposed an "upper term" sentence based on two aggravating factors not proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) the result in Cunningham v. California was clearly dictated by the Supreme Court's Sixth Amendment case law, particularly Blakely, which was decided before petitioner's conviction became final; 2) consequently, a state court's court decision in the case was contrary to such clearly established law; 3) petitioner's constitutional rights were violated when the statutory maximum for his crime was increased on the basis of facts found by a judge by a preponderance of the evidence, rather than a jury beyond a reasonable doubt; and 4) a remand was required for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the violation was harmless.

Appellate Information

• Argued 02/04/2008
• Decided 06/09/2008
• Published 06/09/2008

Judges

• BERZON, Circuit Judge:, Before:  CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, SUSAN P. GRABER, MARSHA S. BERZON, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Davina T. Chen, Deputy Federal Public Defender, Los Angeles, CA, for the petitioner.


• For Appellees:
  
• William H. Shin, Deputy Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for the respondent.