Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00763/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00763-0/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

BRAD GARRETT ODELL,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-03-0763 FCD JFM P

vs.

MIKE KNOWLES, et al., 

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges an enhancement to the prison

sentence imposed pursuant to California Penal Code § 12022.53(d) following his October 2000

conviction on multiple state law criminal charges. Petitioner claims that the enhancement to his

sentence is unlawful because there was no specific jury finding that his personal use of a firearm

proximately caused great bodily injury. 

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:03-cv-00763-FCD-JFM Document 16 Filed 08/26/05 Page 1 of 6
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 facts are taken from the opinion of the California Court of Appeal for the Third 1

Appellate District in People v. Odell, No. C037419 (Feb. 27, 2002), a copy of which is attached

as Exhibit C to Respondents’ Answer, filed July 16, 2003.

2

FACTS1

 Prosecution case-in-chief

 On August 6, 1999, Orrin Anderson went out to dinner and a

movie with his wife, Pegirae, and their 12-year-old daughter,

Kimberly. The movie ended around midnight and Orrin drove his

family home. While they were stopped for a red light, a red

Volkswagen Rabbit sped by and nearly struck the Andersons’ car. 

Orrin honked the horn. When the light turned green, the Rabbit

proceeded through the intersection and the next block, then slowed. 

The Rabbit then began weaving across the traffic lanes. Orrin told

Pegirae to call the police. Pegirae evidently had a cellular

telephone.

 As the cars approached the intersection, the Rabbit made a Uturn and accelerated directly toward the Andersons’ car, causing

Orrin to swerve off the road. Orrin fled through side streets. At

one point, he saw the Rabbit with its headlights off. Orrin told the

police dispatcher that he would meet an officer at a nearby café.

 While the Andersons were parked at the café, they saw a

greenish-blue Mustang approach the café and block the driveway. 

[Petitioner] who was alone in the Mustang, smiled and then fired

three gunshots into the Andersons’ car.

 As Orrin drove away, Kimberly said she was shot and could not

feel anything. She then lost consciousness. Orrin raced to the

University of California Davis Medical Center where Kimberly

was treated in the emergency room. A bullet had struck her spine,

causing paralysis of her lower extremities. She will never walk

again.

 While at the hospital, Sacramento Police Homicide Detective

Keith Burgoon asked Pegirae if she would be able to identify the

shooter. Pegirae said she could identify him; he was a 30-year-old

while male. As Burgoon drove Pegirae to the street where officers

located the Rabbit and the Mustang, Burgoon said he first wanted

her to try to identify the cars. Pegirae recognized both the Rabbit

and the Mustang. Burgoon then said he did not want Pegirae to

identify the detained person unless she was absolutely sure he was

responsible.

 Pegirae sat in the detective’s car as [petitioner] stood in front of

the car with its lights illuminating him. After about 10 or 15

seconds, Pegirae said, “That’s him.” Pegirae recognized

Case 2:03-cv-00763-FCD-JFM Document 16 Filed 08/26/05 Page 2 of 6
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

[petitioner]’s face; she was 100 percent sure he was the shooter. 

Pegirae was able to identify [petitioner] because he was only 15 to

20 feet away when he fired his gun.

 Three bullet holes were located in the Andersons’ car. Tests

revealed that bullet fragments found in the car were fired from a

.38-caliber revolver found in [petitioner]’s residence. A large

amount of gunshot residue was found in [petitioner]’s Mustang,

indicating that a gun had been fired from inside the car. 

[Petitioner] had gunshot residue on his hand.

 Defense

 Sacramento Police Officer Clay Quint spoke with Pegirae at the

hospital shortly after the shooting. Pegirae related the events to

Officer Quint, and told him that she could not identify the shooter.

 Stuart Krum testified that [petitioner] had worked from him at

Schatz & Krum BMW-Porsche for three weeks.

 James Boyd testified that [petitioner] worked with him at the

BMW repair shop. They consumed alcoholic beverages at a bar on

the night of the shooting.

 The parties stipulated that there were three hundred fifty-seven

1994 Ford Mustangs registered in El Dorado, Placer and

Sacramento counties.

(People v. Odell, slip op. at 2-4.)

ANALYSIS

I. Standards for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

Federal habeas corpus relief is not available for any claim decided on the merits in

state court proceedings unless the state court's adjudication of the claim:

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an 

unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as

determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or 

(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable

determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the

State court proceeding.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). 

Under section 2254(d)(1), a state court decision is “contrary to” clearly

established United States Supreme Court precedents if it applies a rule that contradicts the

Case 2:03-cv-00763-FCD-JFM Document 16 Filed 08/26/05 Page 3 of 6
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

4

governing law set forth in Supreme Court cases, or if it confronts a set of facts that are materially

indistinguishable from a decision of the Supreme Court and nevertheless arrives at different

result. Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 7 (2002) (citing Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405-406

(2000)). 

Under the “unreasonable application” clause of section 2254(d)(1), a federal

habeas court may grant the writ if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle

from the Supreme Court’s decisions, but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the

prisoner’s case. Williams, 529 U.S. at 413. A federal habeas court “may not issue the writ

simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court

decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly. Rather, that

application must also be unreasonable.” Id. at 412; see also Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 75

(2003) (it is “not enough that a federal habeas court, in its independent review of the legal

question, is left with a ‘firm conviction’ that the state court was ‘erroneous.’”) 

The court looks to the last reasoned state court decision as the basis for the state

court judgment. Avila v. Galaza, 297 F.3d 911, 918 (9th Cir. 2002). Where the state court

reaches a decision on the merits but provides no reasoning to support its conclusion, a federal

habeas court independently reviews the record to determine whether habeas corpus relief is

available under section 2254(d). Delgado v. Lewis, 223 F.3d 976, 982 (9th Cir. 2000).

II. Petitioner’s Claim

As a result of the events at bar, petitioner was convicted of multiple criminal

charges with enhancements on several of the counts. Petitioner challenges the enhancements

pursuant to California Penal Code § 12022.53(d). That section provides for an enhanced

additional consecutive sentence of twenty-five years to life in prison for individuals who, during

the commission of specified offenses, “personally and intentionally discharges a firearm and

proximately causes great bodily injury . . . to any person. . . .” Cal. Penal Code § 12022.53(d). 

Petitioner contends that the enhancement was wrongly added to his sentence because the jury did

Case 2:03-cv-00763-FCD-JFM Document 16 Filed 08/26/05 Page 4 of 6
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

5

not make a specific finding that he caused great bodily injury. Petitioner’s claim is predicated on

the fact that the verdict forms for the challenged enhancements provided only for a finding that

petitioner had personally used a firearm and did not include language about proximately causing

great bodily injury thereby.

This claim was raised and rejected on direct appeal. The last reasoned rejection of

the claim was by the state court of appeal, which denied the claim on the grounds that (1)

petitioner failed to object to the verdict forms at trial; (2) the jury had been properly instructed as

to the enhancement; and (3) there was no dispute that the shooter caused great bodily injury. 

(People v. Odell, slip op. at 11-12.)

Petitioner contends that his federal constitutional right to due process was violated

when the enhancements were imposed in the absence of a specific finding on the verdict form

that he proximately caused great bodily injury. Petitioner relies on Jones v. United States, 526

U.S. 227 (1999) and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) Those cases require that

“[o]ther than a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the

prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable

doubt.” Apprendi, at 490. It is sufficient that the record as a whole show that the enhancing

facts have in fact been pleaded and proved to the jury. See, e.g., U.S. v. Dowd, F.3d , 2005

WL 1863283 (9 Cir. Aug. 8, 2005); see also U.S. v. Valencia Amezcua, 278 F.3d 901, 910 (9 th th

Cir. 2002).

For the reasons set forth by the state court of appeal, the requirements of due

process were satisfied in this case. Petitioner’s claim should be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s application for

a writ of habeas corpus be denied.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

Case 2:03-cv-00763-FCD-JFM Document 16 Filed 08/26/05 Page 5 of 6
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

6

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: August 25, 2005. 

12

odel0763.157

Case 2:03-cv-00763-FCD-JFM Document 16 Filed 08/26/05 Page 6 of 6