Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-01427/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-01427-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Marshall
Respondent
Robert Dell McGilberry
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT DELL McGILBERRY,

Petitioner,

 vs.

JOHN MARSHALL, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 06-1427 PJH (PR)

ORDER FOR

SUPPLEMENTAL

BRIEFING

This is a habeas case filed by a state prisoner. Petitioner asserts that at sentencing

the trial court imposed the upper term on the offense itself, then doubled that term for a

previous strike, then added five years for five prior prison terms. He asserts that this

violated his due process rights and his Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury as set out in

Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 303-04 (2004). 

Respondent has filed an answer and petitioner has responded. The case thus

would be ready for decision, were it not for a recent decision of the United States Supreme

Court which may bear on petitioner’s claim. In Cunningham v. California, 127 S. Ct. 856

(2007), the Court held that its decisions from Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000),

to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), point to the middle term specified in

California's statutes, not the upper term, as the relevant statutory maximum, and that

California's determinate sentencing law therefore violates the Sixth Amendment because it

authorizes the judge, not the jury, to find the facts permitting an upper term sentence. 

Id. at 871. 

Blakely was decided on June 24, 2004. Because petitioner’s conviction did not

become final on appeal until 2005, Blakely applies here. Cunningham was decided on

Case 4:06-cv-01427-PJH Document 21 Filed 10/01/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

January 22, 2007. Because it was decided after petitioner’s conviction became final, it may

or may not apply here depending on whether it is barred by Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288,

310-316 (1989) (federal court may not grant habeas corpus relief to prisoner based on

constitutional rule of criminal procedure announced after conviction and sentence became

final unless rule fits within one of two narrow exceptions). 

It would assist the court to have supplemental briefing on several points: (1)

whether Cunningham is a “new rule” that cannot be applied retroactively on collateral

review under Teague; (2) how Cunningham affects the outcome here if it applies; and (3)

what the proper harmless error analysis is for this fact pattern.

Respondent shall file a supplemental brief addressing the above questions within

thirty days of the date this order is entered. Petitioner may file a responsive brief, if he

wishes, within thirty days of the date respondent’s brief is served upon him. The court will

then consider the merits of the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 1, 2007. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.06\mcgilberry1427.supp.wpd

Case 4:06-cv-01427-PJH Document 21 Filed 10/01/07 Page 2 of 2