Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05695/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05695-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADAM GONZALEZ, )

)

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

JIM HAMLET, WARDEN, )

)

)

Respondent. )

)

)

No. CV-F-03-5695 REC/DLB HC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2254

AND DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO

INFORM THE COURT WITHIN 90

DAYS WHETHER PETITIONER WILL

BE RETRIED

On July 26, 2005, the United States Magistrate Judge

recommended that the court grant petitioner’s petition for writ

of habeas corpus with regard to petitioner’s conviction of two

counts of arson of an inhabited dwelling in violation of

California Penal Code § 451(b) on the ground that the admission

of the out of court statement of Jesse Parraz to Detective

Sumpter that petitioner told Parraz that he would burn his house,

that petitioner admitted to Parraz that petitioner had burned his

house in retaliation, and that Parraz stated to petitioner that

Case 1:03-cv-05695-OWW -DLB Document 25 Filed 11/16/05 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

The court notes that, on August 22, 2005, the Ninth Circuit 1

stayed issuance of the mandate in Bockting pending the filing of a

petition for writ of certiorari. A petition for writ of certiorari

was filed with the Supreme Court on November 7, 2005, Case No. 05-

595. 

2

he was going to burn down petitioner’s house was error pursuant

to Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), which decision is

retroactively applicable pursuant to Bockting v. Bayer, 399 F.3d

1010, amended, 408 F.3d 1127, rehearing en banc denied, 418 F.3d

1055 (9 Cir. 2005). The United States Magistrate Judge th

recommended that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied

on all other grounds asserted for relief.

Respondent timely filed objections to the recommendation, to

which objections petitioner filed a timely reply.

Respondent’s objection to the recommendation is limited to

the contention that this court is not bound by the decision in

Bockting because the Ninth Circuit has not yet issued the mandate

in that case. Respondent argues that, therefore, this court is

free to disregard Bockting and to independently decide whether

Crawford is retroactively applicable to cases on collateral

review.1

Respondent’s assertion that this court has the authority to

disregard the ruling made in Bockting is without merit. See

Wedbush, Noble, Cooke, Inc. v. SEC, 714 F.2d 923 (9 Cir. 1983); th

McClennan v. Young, 421 F.2d 690 (6 Cir. 1970); see also Yong th

v. INS, 208 F.3d 1116 (9 Cir. 2000). th

ACCORDINGLY:

Case 1:03-cv-05695-OWW -DLB Document 25 Filed 11/16/05 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is granted with

regard to petitioner’s conviction of two counts of arson of an

inhabited dwelling in violation of California Penal Code § 451(b)

because of the admission of an out of court statement in

violation Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) and is

otherwise denied.

2. Respondent is ordered to inform the court within 90 days

of the filing date of this Order whether the State will retry

petitioner on the arson counts.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 16, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05695-OWW -DLB Document 25 Filed 11/16/05 Page 3 of 3