Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01764/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01764-4/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

27

28 1

 The Court substitutes the current Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation as Respondent in this matter. See Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996)

(stating that the respondent in § 2254 proceedings may be the chief officer in charge of state penal institutions).

C:\Documents and Settings\Lc2lor\Local Settings\Temp\notes4DFDCF\bean_COA.wpd 1 1:07cv1764

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRESNO DIVISION

ZENTORY T. BEAN, Civil No. 1:07-1764 MJL (NLS)

Petitioner,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

vs. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

MATTHEW CATE, Secretary,1

Respondent.

I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the United States Court for the Eastern

District of California on December 5, 2007. (See Doc. No. 1.) On November 25, 2008, the matter was

transferred to this Court. (See Doc. No. 13.) The petition was granted in part and denied in part in an

Order filed June 17, 2009. (See Doc. No. 15.) Thereafter, Respondent filed a Motion to Alter or Amend

the Judgment on June 29, 2009. (See Doc. No 17.) The Court granted the motion on March 15, 2010

and denied the petition in its entirety. (See Doc. No. 19.) Petitioner filed a motion for a certificate of

appealability (COA) on April 14, 2010. (See Doc. No. 22.)

/ / /

Case 1:07-cv-01764-MJL -NLS Document 24 Filed 06/03/10 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

27

28

C:\Documents and Settings\Lc2lor\Local Settings\Temp\notes4DFDCF\bean_COA.wpd 2 1:07cv1764

II. REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

A COA is required pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 before a petitioner can pursue an appeal. A

COA will issue when the petitioner makes a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

28 U.S.C. § 2253; Pham v. Terhune, 400 F.3d 740, 742 (9th Cir. 2005). A “substantial showing”

requires a demonstration that “‘reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the

constitutional claims debatable or wrong.’” Beaty v. Stewart, 303 F.3d 975, 984 (9th Cir. 2002),

quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

Bean has asked this Court to grant a COA on the question whether the aggravated term he

received as part of his sentence violated his Sixth Amendment right, as delineated in Cunningham v.

California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007), because it was “based on a fact, other than a prior conviction, not

found by a jury or admitted by the defendant.” Id. at 275. The Court finds Bean has not made a

‘substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” warranting the issuance of a COA with

respect to any of his articulated grounds because none of his grounds presents a debatable issue raising

any constitutional concern or colorable claim for relief deserving of further proceedings.

Bean first contends the fact relied upon by the trial court to impose the aggravated term on the

gun enhancement charge, that the manner in which the offense was committed indicated planning, was

not found by a jury and was specifically contradicted by Bean’s plea to voluntary manslaughter, which

is defined as a killing without malice. (Pet’rs Req. for COA at 6-7.) As the Court concluded in its Order

granting Respondent’s Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment, under Butler v. Curry, 528 F.3d 624,

648 (9th Cir. 2008), any Cunningham error in Bean’s sentence was harmless because an aggravated term

may be imposed if at least one valid aggravating factor was found by a jury or admitted to by the

defendant. Bean’s admission that he committed manslaughter and personally used a gun, coupled with

his prior convictions, satisfied two valid aggravating factors: (1) “the defendant engaged in violent

conduct that indicates a serious danger to society”; and (2) “the defendant’s prior convictions as an adult

. . . are numerous or of increasing seriousness” that the trial court could have validly relied on. See

Butler, 528 F.3d at 648; Cal.R.Ct. 4.421(b)(1), (2). That the trial court actually used a different

aggravating factor to enhance Bean’s sentence does not render the sentence invalid. Butler, 528 F.3d

at 648

Case 1:07-cv-01764-MJL -NLS Document 24 Filed 06/03/10 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

27

28

C:\Documents and Settings\Lc2lor\Local Settings\Temp\notes4DFDCF\bean_COA.wpd 3 1:07cv1764

Bean also notes that the prosecution did not file and serve a Statement in Aggravation four days

prior to sentencing, as required by the California Rules of Court. Bean claims the trial court thus could

not have legally imposed the aggravated term. (Pet’rs Req. for COA at 8.) Even if Bean’s interpretation

of California law is correct, however, the prosecution’s failure to file such a statement does not alter the

fact that an aggravated sentence could have been legally imposed at a later date, rendering any error

harmless. See Butler, 528 F.3d at 648. 

Finally, Bean contends that People v. Black (“Black II”), 41 Cal. 4th 799 (2007), which held that

as long as the trial court relies on one properly found aggravating factor to impose the aggravated term,

the Sixth Amendment is satisfied, improperly altered California’s Determinate Sentencing Law (DSL)

because it did not require the sentencing court to find that the aggravating factors outweighed the

mitigating ones. (Pet’rs Req. for COA at 8-17.) Federal habeas relief, however, is not available for

alleged violations of state law. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991) (stating that federal habeas

relief is not available for an alleged error in the interpretation or the application of state law); see also

28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). In any event, as discussed in this Court’s Order granting Respondent’s Motion to

Alter or Amend the Judgement, any Cunningham error committed by the trial court was harmless because

at least one aggravating factor was validly found by the trial court. See Butler, 528 F.3d at 648.

For all the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that “‘[no] reasonable jurists would find the district

court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.’” Beaty, 303 F.3d at 984 quoting

Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. Bean has not made a “substantial showing” the challenged Order and Judgment

denied him a constitutional right on any of his asserted grounds. His request for a COA is therefore

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 2, 2010

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

Case 1:07-cv-01764-MJL -NLS Document 24 Filed 06/03/10 Page 3 of 3