N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT TREM AIN DION C AM PB ELL, Pe titione r - Appe lle e , v. TIM V. VIR GA, W arde n, R

e sponde n t - Appe lla nt. No. 14-56756

D.C . No. 2:10-c v-01698-JGB -JC G M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Je sus G. B e rna l, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d July

6, 2015 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : FER

NANDEZ a

nd C LIFTON, C i rc uit Judge s a nd M UELLER , ** Distric t Judge . W arde n

Virga a p pe a l s the judgm e nt of the distric t c ourt gra nting a writ of ha be a s c orpus for pe titione r Tre m a in Dion C am pbe ll. W e re ve rse . 

# FIL ED AUG 21 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Kim be rly J. M ue lle r, Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Ea s te rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.C am

pbe ll c o nte n ds tha

t A EDPA de fe re nc e should not a p ply he re and tha

t we should re vie w de novo be c a use the la st re a s one d de c ision by the C a lifornia Supre m e C ourt, re

je c ting his pe tition for re lie f, wa s not a de c ision on the

m e rits. It, ra the r, wa s ba se d on a

proc e dura l fa ilure that the warde n ha s not c ite d a nd ha s thus wa ive d in this fe de ra l proc e e ding. The wa rde n disa gre e s. W e ne e d

not re solve tha

t issue a s C am

pbe ll’ s c la im

fa ils e ve n unde r de novo re vie w . W he n a de fe n da n t se e ks to re pre s e nt him se lf at tria l, he m ust “ k nowingly and inte llige ntly ” wa ive the right to c ounse l, a ware “ of the da

nge rs a nd disa dva nta ge s of se lf-re pre se ntation.” Fare tta v . C alifornia , 422 U.S. 806, 835 (1975). A tria l c ourt ne e d not follow a n e xa c t sc ript, but the de fe nda nt m ust be inform e d of “ ‘ 1) the nature of the c ha rge s a ga inst him , 2) the possible pe na ltie s, and 3) the da

n g e rs a nd disa dva

nta ge s of se lf-re pre se ntation.’ ” Unite d State s v . Hantzis , 625 F.3d 575, 579–80 (9th C i r. 2010) (quoting Unite d State s v . Ersk ine , 355 F.3d 1161, 1167 (9th C ir. 2004)). The re is no dispute that C am pbe ll wa s inform e d

of both thenature of the c ha rge s a nd the da nge rs of se lf-re pre se ntation. C am pbe ll a rgue s, howe ve r, tha

t he wa s not prope rly

inform e d of the range of possiblepe na ltie s he fa c e d. The tria l c ourt told him , ba se d on inform a tion re c e ive d from the prose c utor, tha

t he fa c e d 50 y e ars to life , e m

pha siz ing tha

t C am pbe ll c ould be spe nding there st of his life in 2prison. Following his c onvic tion, C am pbe ll wa s a c tua lly

se n te n c e d to 70 y e ars to life . He c onte nds tha

t the c orre c t sta

tutory m a xim um se nte nc e a t the tim e of the dia l ogue wa s 96 y e a

rs to life . Thus, he argue s tha t the tria l c ourt m issta

te d the lowe r e nd of the pote ntia l m a x im um punishm e nt ra

nge . The Supre m e C ourt ha s e sta b lishe d that a

de fe nda nt m ust ha ve a “ ge ne ra l unde rsta nding” of the possiblepe na ltie s be fore wa iving c ounse l . Arre ndondo v
. N e v e n , 763 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th C ir. 2014). A pre c ise unde rsta nding of thee xa c t range of pote ntia l se nte nc e s ha s not be e n re q uire d, howe ve r. Unde r the c irc um s ta nc e s he re , we c onc lude tha t C am pbe ll wa s suffic ie ntly

inform e d of the possible pe na ltie s to m ake his wa i ve r of the right to c ounse l knowing a nd inte llige nt. He wa s inform e d of the risk whe n the tria l c ourt bluntly told him tha t he wa s “ looking a

t [the ] whole re st of [his] life in sta te prison.” Tha

t is wha t he ne e de d to know to make a knowing de c ision to waive c ounse l, a nd he m a de tha

t de c ision inte llige ntly , if not wise ly , in posse s sion of tha t knowle dge . This c a se is unlike Unite d State s v . Forre s te r , 512 F.3d 500, 505 (9th C ir. 2007), whe re the tria l c ourt m isinform e d the de fe nda nt of both the

pote ntia l m a xim um and a m andatory m inim

um . It is a lso unlike U

nite d State

s v . Ersk ine , 355 F.3d 1161, 1164–65 (9th C ir. 2004), whe re the de fe nda nt sta te d tha t he thought the

m a xim um se nte nc e wa s one y e ar whe n in a c tua lity it wa s five y e ars. 3In c ontra st, C am pbe ll kne w he wa s fa c ing the possibility of life in prison, a

n d the se nte nc e im

pose d on him

a fte r he wa s c onvic te d wa s within the range de sc ribe d to him at the tim e he wa ive d his right to c o unse l. He ha d the inform a t ion ne e de d to m ake his de c ision “with e y e s ope n.” Ersk ine , 355 F.3d a

t 1169 (c iting Fare tta , 422 U.S. at 835). W e re ve rse the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of the writ. RE V E RSE D .

4