T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he H onor a bl e R i c ha r d M i l l s , S e ni orU ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJ udge f or ** th e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f

I llin o is , s ittin g b y d e s ig n a tio n . NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT
B E N N Y L E O N , J R ., P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t,
v s. R I C H A R D K I R K L A N D , e t al ., R esp o n d en t s-A p p el l ees. N o. 09- 15696 D . C. N o . 0 6
- CV
- 0 1 8 5 5 - FCD
- CH S
ME MOR AN DU M *

A p p e a l f r o m th e U n ite d S ta te s D is tr ic t C o u r t f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia F r a nk C
. D a m r e l l , J r . , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r14, 2010

S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B ef ore: W A L L A C E and T H O M A S , C i rc ui tJudg es , an d M IL L S , S eni or D i stri ct Judg e. ** B en n y L eo n , Jr., a C alifo rn ia state p riso n er , ap p ea ls fr o m th e d istrict co u rt’s de ni a l of h i s pe t i t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 2254 f ora w r i tof

ha be a s c orpus . W e ha ve 

# FI LED NO V 17 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

ju risd icti o n p u rs u an t t o 2 8 U .S .C . § § 1 2 9 1 an d 2 2 5 3 . W e r ev iew th e d istrict co u rt’s deni al of a habeas pet i t i on de no vo , w hi l e i t s f ac tual fi nd i ng s a re re vi ew ed for cl ea r e rr o r . Se e McMur tr e

y v . R y an , 5 3 9 F .3 d 1 1 1 2 , 1 1 1 8 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) . W e a f f ir m in p a r t a n d r e v e r s e a n d r e m a n d in p a r t. W e c onc l ude tha t a ny e rr or the tr i a l c our t m a de i n e xc l udi ng e vi de nc e tha tL e on s oughtt o of

f e rf orthe purpos e of

e s t a bl i s hi n g h i s st a t e of m i nd w a s ha r m l e s s . T he di stri c t c ou r t c orr e c t l y de t e r mi ne d tha t Le on i s no t e nt i t l e d t o habe a s r e l i e f on t hat is s u e . L e o n a ls o s e e k s h a b e a s r e lie f b a s e d o n a s e n te n c in g e rr o r . F o llo w in g h is
conv i ct i on for vol un t ary m ansl augh t er , L eo n w as se nt ence d t o an u pp ert erm base d on f a c t s w hi ch w ere found by the tr i a l j udge
. “ O the rtha n the f a c tof a pr i or conv i ct i on , any f

ac tthati ncre as es the penal ty fo r acr i m e bey on d the pres cr i bed
s ta tu to ry m a x im u m m u s t b e s u b m itte d to a ju ry , a n d p r o v e d b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b le do ub t . ” App re nd iv. N

ew Je rs ey , 53 0 U . S . 46 6, 49 0 (20 00 ). T he S up re m e C ou rtl at er hel d that“ the ‘ st atutory m axi m um ’ for Appr e ndipu rposes i s the m axi m um se nt ence a j ud ge m ay i m po se s ol e l y on the bas is o

f th e f a cts r e f l e c t e d i n the j ur

y v e r di c t or adm i t t e d by the de

f e ndant
. ” B lake l

y v . W as hi ngton , 5 4 2 U . S . 296, 303 ( 2004) ( e m p h a s is in o r ig in a l)
. T he S upr e m e C our t l a t e r he l d tha t unde r C a l i f or ni a ’ s de t e r m i n at e se nt e nc i ng3

law , a n u p p er t erm se nt ence coul d b e i m po se d o nl y i f the tri al j ud ge foun d an
a g g r a v a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e . C u n n in g h a m v . C a lifo r n ia , 54 9 U . S . 27 0, 28 8 (20 07 ). A c c or di ngl y , the m i ddl e t e r m unde rC a l i f orni a ’ s s t a tut e s s e rve s a s the r e l e va nt st atut ory m axi m um for Ap p r e n d i p u rp o s e s . See id
. A l though C unni ngham h a d n o tb e e n d e c i d e d w h e n Le o n ’ s c o n v i c t i o n b e c a me f in a l, th is c o u rt h a s d e te r m in e d th a t C unni n g ham di d nota nnounc e a ne w rul e of
c o n s titu tio n a l l a w a n d th u s m a y b e ap p lie d r e tr o a c tiv e ly o n c o lla te r a l r e v ie w . See B u t l er v. C u rry , 52 8 F . 3d 6 2 4 , 6 3 9 (9 th C i r. 20 08 ). In consi deri ng L eon’ s habea s p e titio n , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o rr e c tly f o u n d th a t C u n n i n g h a m ap p lie s a n d th a t th e s ta te appel l at e court ’ s det erm i nat i on of L eon’ s cl ai m w as cont ra ry t o c l ea rl y e stab l i shed S upr e m e C our tpr e c e de nt . H ow e ve r , the di s tr i c tc our tf ound tha tthe s e nt e nc i ng e rr or w a s h a r m le s s . T he tri al j ud ge foun d that the vi ct i m i n thi s c as e w as “ part i cul ar l y vul nerabl e”
un der C al i forni a l aw because the cr i m e occurre d a s she w as ent er i ng her ow n h om e. T h e ju d g e e m p h a s iz e d th a t L e o n w a s in s id e a d a r k ap a r tm e n t a n d b a s ic a lly in v is ib le t o t he v i c t i m a s s h e w a s e n t e r i n g th e r e s i d e n c e . Be c a u s e o f th e l i g h t i n g o u t s i d e , t he vi c t i m w a s t ot a l l y vi s i bl e t o L e on. T he tr i a l c our td et e r m i ne d tha tthe a ggr a va t i ng c i r c um s t a nc e appl i e d, f

i ndi ng tha tthe r e w a s notgr a ve d oubttha ta j ur y w oul d ha ve foun d the vi ct i m t o b e “ part i cul ar l y vul nerabl e” t o the cr i m e of v o lu n t ary4

m a n s la u g h te r . C a l i f orni a l a w de f

i ne s “ vul ne r a bl e ” a s “ de f e ns e l e s s , unguarde d, unpr ot e c t e d,
ac ce ss i bl e, as sa i l abl e, on e w ho i s susce pt i bl e t o the defe nd ant ’ s cri m i nal ac t . ” B ut l er , 5 2 8 F .3 d a t 6 4 9 ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a r k s a n d c ita tio n s o m itte d )
. A v i c t i m w h o is
v u ln e r a b le to a “s p e c ia l o ru n u s u a l d e g r e e , to a n e x te n t g r e a t e r t h a n in o th e rc a s e s ,” is “p a r tic u la r ly ” v u ln e r a b le
. Id
. T h e c o u r t n o t ed th ata v i ct i m i s n o t“ p art i cu l arl y”
v u l n e r a b l e i f

“ a l l v i c t i ms o f

th e c r i m e of c o n v i c t i o n a r e v u l n e r a b l e i n th e s a me m anner. ” Id
. I n B ut l er , w e de t e r m i ne d the r e w a s gr a ve doubttha ta j ury w oul d ha ve f ound th a t th e v ic tim w a s “a p a r tic u la r ly v u ln e r a b le v ic tim o f th e c r im e o f d o m e s tic a s s a u lt

. . . becaus e sh e w as atta cked from behi nd
. ” Id
. W e obs e r ve d tha t , “ [ i ] n the
ove rw he l m i ng m a

j or i ty of case s , ‘ pa r t i c ul a r l y vul ne r a bl e vi c t i m s ’ ha ve ha d i nhe r e nt pe r s ona l c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s tha t , s om e t i m e s i n c om bi na t i on w i th the m a nne r i n w hi c h the
cr i m e w as com m i tt ed, re nd erthem m ore vu l nerabl e than o ther vi ct i m s. ” Id
. ( c i t a t i ons o m itte d )
. N o n e o f th o s e c h a r a c te r is tic s
– s u c h a s a g e o r p h y s ic a l in f ir m ity

– w e r e f

a c to r s in thi s c a s e . O the rm or e c ha nge a bl e a s pe c t s of a vi c t i m ’ s s t a tus ha ve be e n r e l i e d on by C al i fo rn i a co u rt s, su ch as i n t o x i cat i o n o r t em p o rary i n c a p a c ity
. Se e id
. H ow ever , n o n e o f th o se st at es are factors in this case. W e n o t ed th atw e w ere aw are o f n o case5

w hi c h de t e r m i ne d tha t“ a tt a c ki ng a vi c t i m f r om be hi nd w a s the s ol e ba s i s f ora f i ndi ng of part i cul arvu l nerabi l i ty. ” Id
. W e f ur the robs e r ve d: A ju ry m ig h t h a v e c o n c lu d e d th a t h a v in g o n e ’s b a c k tu rn e d is s im ila rto bei ng as l ee p i n the se nse thatbo th are t em po ra ry st at es , and t hati n eac h case th e d efen d an tt ak es ad v an t ag e o f a m o m en to f g reat er assai l ab i l i ty. B u t th e y a r e n o t s o s im ila r th a t w e c a n s a y w ith c o n f id e n c e , p a r tic u la r ly i n l i g h t o f th e ma n y c a s e s f o c u s e d o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s s u c h a s a ge a nd ph ys i ca l f

ra il ty, thata j ury w ou l d con cl ud e thatan i nd i vi du al w i th h er back turned i s a“ part i cul ar l y vul nerabl e vi ct i m . ” Id
. at 6 5 0 . W e c onc l ude d tha tw e ha d “ gr a ve doubt ” a j ury w oul d ha ve de t e r m i ne d, be y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubta nd ba s e d onl y on the f a c t orof be i ng a tt a c ke d f

r om behi nd , th at th e vi ct i m w as a “ part i cul ar l y vul nerabl e” vi ct i m of do m es t i c vi ol ence . Se e id
. a t651. T he ma n n e r th a t th e v i c t i m w a s a tt a c k e d i n th i s c a s e i s a n a l o g o u s t o be i ng a tta c k e d f

r o m b e h in d . N o n e o f th e c h a r a c te r is tic s th a t C a lif o rn ia c o u r ts h a v e u s e d to s uppor ta f

i ndi ng of pa r t i c ul a rvul ne r a bi l i ty a r e pr e s e nthe r e . A c c or di ngl y , w e ha ve

“ gr a ve doubt ” t h at a j u ry i n thi s c a s e w oul d ha ve f ound be y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubt th a t th e v ic tim w a s p a r tic u la r ly v u ln e r a b le
. A l th o u g h th e i ssu e o f th e en h an cem en t fo r “ g reat v i o l en ce, cru el ty, v i ci o u sn ess a nd c a l l ous ne s s ” w a s c ont e s t e d be f or e the di s tr i c tc our t , i tw a s notr e l i ed o n i n the
m agi stra t e j ud ge’ s f

i nd i ng s and re com m endat i on s, w hi ch w er e a do pt ed by the di stri ct j udge
. L e on c ont e nds tha tthe r e c or d doe s nots uppor tthe e nha nc e m e nt . T he6

R e s p o n d e n t d o e s n o t a d d r e s s th e is s u e in its b r ie f . A cc ordi ng l y, w e a ff

i rm i n p art , re vers e i n part , and rem and t o the di stri ctcourt
w ith in s tru c tio n s to g r a n t th e w r it o n th e s e n te n c in g is s u e . A F F IR M E D i n p art; R E V E R S E D an d R E M A N D E D i n p art. P e t it io n e r – A p p e lla n t a w a r d e d c o s t s o n a p p e a l.