N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
GREGOR

Y ANTHONY POW ELL, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt,
v. D. L. R UNNELS, W arde n , R

e sponde n t - Appe lle e . No. 12-15608

D.C . No. 2:09-c v-01598-M C ETJB
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia M o rrison C . Engla

nd, Jr., C hie f Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d July

9, 2014 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : FER

NANDEZ, N.R
. SM ITH, a nd C HR ISTEN, C i rc u it Judge s. W e re vie w a pe tition for a writ of ha

be a s c orpus de novo, giving de fe re nc e to the sta te c ourt’ s fa c tua l findings a nd re vie wing the distric t c ourt’ s fa c t ua l findings for c le ar e rror. Lope z v . Thompson , 202 F.3d 1110, 1116 (9th C ir. 2000) (e n ba nc ). 

# FIL ED
JUL 18 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at 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.“ An a pplic ation for a

writ of ha

be a s c orpus on be ha lf of a pe rson in c ustody pursua nt to thejudgm e nt of a

State c ourt” m a

y only be grante d whe re the a djudic ation of thec la im (1) re s ulte d in a

de c ision tha

t wa s c ontra ry to, or involve d a

n unre a sona

ble a pplic ation of, c le a

rly e sta blishe d Fe de ra l la

w, a s de te rm ine d by

the Supre m e C ourt of the Unite d State s; or (2) re sulte d in a de c ision tha

t wa s ba se d on a

n unre a sona

ble de te rm i nation of thefa c ts in light of the e vide nc e pre se nte d in the State c ourt proc e e ding. 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d). I. The C a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l’ s c onc lusion— that the sta te tria l c o urt ha d not viola te d Powe ll’ s Sixth Am e ndm e nt jury tria l right by re ly ing on Powe l l’ s pa role sta tus a s a n a ggravating c irc um s ta

nc e wa rranting uppe r te rm
se nte nc e s—

wa s not “ an unre a sona

ble a pplic ation” of Supre m e C ourt pre c e de nt. 1 Se e Harrington v. Ric hte r , 131 S. C t. 770, 786-87 (2011)

. At the tim e the C a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l re a c he d its de c i sion, theSupre m e C ourt ha d not spoke n on the bre a dth of the prior c onvic tion e xc e ption in Appre ndi , 530 U.S. a t 490, and

1 Though theuppe r te rm

se nte nc e on the pe rsona l use of a fire arm e nha nc e m e nt wa s c le arly

ba se d on Powe ll’ s pa

role sta t us a t the tim e , the uppe r te rm se nte nc e for atte m

pte d volunta

ry m ansla ughte r m ay

not ha ve be e n. Howe ve r, to the e xte nt it wa s n’ t , the uppe r te rm se nte nc e for atte m

pte d volunta

ry m ansla u ghte r wa s ne v e rthe le ss ba se d on fa c ts found by the jury , inc luding theuse of a fire a rm and the thre at of gre at bodily injury . Thus, this wa s not e rror unde r Appre ndi v . N

e w J e rse y , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000).

-2-the c irc uits we re split on whe the r one ’ s pa role sta t us fe ll within it. Se e K

e s se e v . Me n doza-Pow e rs , 574 F.3d 675, 677 (9th C ir. 2009) (“ For purpose s of AEDPA
re vie w, . . . a

sta te c ourt’ s de te rm ination tha t is c onsiste nt with m any

siste r c irc uits’ inte rpre tations of Supre m e C ourt pre c e d e nt, e ve n if inc onsiste nt with [theNinth C irc uit’ s] vie w, is unlike ly to be ‘ c ontra

ry to, or involve

an unre a sona

ble
a pplic ation of, c le arly

e s ta blishe d Fe de ra l la

w, a s de t e rm i ne d by

the Supre m e C ourt.’ ” ). 2 II. W e grant Powe ll’ s re que st for a c e rtific ate of a

ppe a la bility with re s pe c t to his c la i m tha t the sta te tria l c ourt’ s e rrone ous a tte m pte d volunta

ry m a nsla ughte r jury instruc tion wa s pre

judic i a l, be c a

use Powe ll “ ha s m a de a

substa ntia l showing of the de nia l of a

c onstitutiona

l right.” Se e Mille r-El v . C oc k re ll , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (inte rna l quota

tion m a rks om itte d). All pa

rtie s a gre e the jury

instruc t ion
wa s e rrone ous. Se e Dix on v . W illiams , 750 F.3d 1027, 1034 (9th C ir. 2014). The
e rrone ous jury

instruc tion wa s a lso c onstitutiona l e rror. Se e id. Thus, theissue is

2 Estre lla v . Ollison , 668 F.3d 593 (9th C ir. 2011), is not to the c ontra ry . The re , the sta

te c ourt ha d

use d the pe titione r’ s pa

role sta t us a s an a g gravating fa c t or wa rranting a n uppe r-te rm

se nte nc e , though not found by the jury , but it did not do so under the we ight of the“ prior c onvic tion” e x c e p tion. Id. at 598; se e also Estre lla v . Ollison , No. 06-1086 C JC (FFM ), 2010 W L 2851878 a t *5 n.7 (C .D. C a l. June 11, 2010). -3-“ a d e quate to de se rve e nc oura ge m e nt to proc e e d furthe r.” Mille r-El , 537 U.S. a t 336 (inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). Ne ve rthe le s s, we d o not ha ve “ grave doubt” a

bout whe the r the C a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l’ s de c ision— that the e rrone ous a

tte m pte d volunta

ry m a nsla ughte r jury instruc tion did not pre

judic e Powe ll— “ a ffe c te d [the ] jury substa ntia lly and injuriously .” Dixon, 750 F.3d a t 1034 (a l te ra t ion om itte d)

. The C a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l re lie d on the following fa c ts in re a c hing its
c onc lusion: (1) the

pa rtie s we re foc use d on the m urde r c ha rge at tria l: the prose c ution only

m e ntione d the atte m

pte d volunta

ry m ansla ughte r possible
a lte rnative ve rdic t at c losing in two se nte nc e s, a n d the de fe nse ne ve r spoke of it a t
a ll; a nd (2) the e v ide n c e tha

t Powe l l wa s the shoote r and shot Gre e n with inte nt to kill wa s strongly

supporte d by

the pre se nc e of two bulle t s in Gre e n ’ s body and the
num be r of shots Powe ll fire d at he r. Additiona l fa c ts highlighte d by the fe de ra l distric t c o urt furthe r substa ntia te the a bse nc e of pre

judic e : (1) Powe ll shot Gre e n in the b a c k while sitting dire c t ly be hind he r in the c ar’ s ba c kse at; a nd (2) Powe ll pursue d Gre e n a

nd fire d m ore shots a

t he r a fte r she fle d the ve hic le , hitting her
anothe r tim e . AFFIRM E D
.

-4-