Case ID: f-appx_599/html/0270-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jerome MARKAY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. L. BROWN and Attorney General for the State of California, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 08-16538.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted March 9, 2015.
    
    Filed March 19, 2015.
    Jerome Markay, Susanville, CA, pro se.
    Catherine Tennant Nieto, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, AGCA— Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondents-Appel-lees.
    Before: WALLACE, M. SMITH, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jerome Markay, appealing from the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, argues that his absence at resentencing violated his right to be present at all critical stages of trial. We affirm the district court’s denial of Mar-kay’s habeas petition because even if Mar-kay had a constitutional right to be present at resentencing, and even if he did not waive that right, the California Court of Appeal did not unreasonably determine that any error in his case was harmless. See Campbell v. Rice, 408 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc); Rice v. Wood, 77 F.3d 1138, 1144 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc).

Nothing in the record suggests that Markay’s absence influenced the sentencing court’s decision. The court was familiar with Markay’s mental health history, and Markay was represented by counsel. Markay’s speculation that he would have received a lighter sentence had he been present is inadequate, at least on this record, to demonstrate that his absence had a “substantial and injurious effect” on the outcome. Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 623, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.