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 and 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 pa ne l una ni m ous l y c onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t.

T he H onor abl e T e rry J . H a tt e r , J r . , S e ni orU ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJ udge *** f orthe C e ntr a l D i s tr i c tof C a l i f orni a , s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON U N I TED STA TES C O U R T O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT J AME S CA L L OW AY , P e titio n e r/A p p e lla n t, v. RA ND Y G RO UN DS , R es po nd ent/A pp el l ee . N o. 09- 17280 D . C. N o . 0 2 - c v - 0 5 8 8 2 - rmw ME MORA ND UM *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia R ona l d M . W hy t e , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d J ul y 22, 2011 ** S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B e f o r e : T A S H I MA a nd RAW L I NS ON , C i r c ui tJ udge s , a nd H A TTER , D i s tr i c tJ udge .

*** 

# FI LED MA Y03 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

J a m e s C a llo w a y ( “C a llo w a y ” ) ap p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f h is su m m ary j u d g m en tm o t i o n an d th e g ran t i n g o f A p p el l ee’ s m o t i o n t o d i sm i ss C al l ow ay ’ s pet i t i on for h a b ea s co rp u s. We r e v i e w de nov o a di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of a pet i t i on for habe as c or pus . Estrada v. Scri bn er , 5 1 2 F .3 d 1 2 2 7 , 1 2 3 5 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) . W h e n r e v ie w in g as ta te c o u r t’s im p o s itio n o f

ac r im in a l s e n te n c e , w e m u s t “lo o kto th e la s t r e a s o n e d s ta te courtdeci si on . ” V

an L y nn v . Farm on , 34 7 F . 3d 73 5, 73 8 (9th C i r. 20 03 ). H er e, tha tde c i s i on w a s the unpubl i s he d C a l i f orni aC our tof

A ppe a l opi ni on i n P eopl e v . C al low ay , 2002 W L 31053941 ( 2002) . B e c aus e tha tde c i s i on w a s f i l e d a f t e rthe e f f e c t i ve da t e of

the A nt i t e rr or i s m a nd E f f e c t i ve D e a th P e na l ty A c tof 1996 ( “A E D P A ” ) , P u b . L . N o . 1 0 4 - 1 3 2 , 1 1 0 S ta t. 1 2 1 4 ( 1 9 9 6 ) , th is ap p e a l is s u b je c t to th e A E D P A . Se e M

a r tin ezv . G a r c ia , 3 7 9 F .3 d 1 0 3 4 , 1 0 3 7 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . A c c o r d in g ly , w e m a yg r a n t habe as re l i ef on l y i f the st at e c ou rt ’ s dec i si on w as

“ contraryt o, or i nv ol ved an u nrea sonabl e app l i cat i on of, cl earl y e st abl i shed F eder al l aw , as det erm i ned b y the S up re m e C ou rtof the U ni t ed S t at es ; or re sul t ed i n ade c i s i on tha tw a s ba s e d on a n unr e a s onabl e de t e rm i na t i on of the f a c t s i n l i ght of the evi dence pres ent ed i n the S t at e c ou rtproceedi ng . ” 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(d)(1)- (2). A st at e c ou rtdeci si on i s “ contraryt o cl earl y e st abl i shed S up re m e C ou rt prec edenti f the st at e c ou rtappl i es a rul e thatcontra di ct s the go verni ng l aw se t3

forth i n [S up re m e C ou rt ] ca se s” or “ i f the st at e c ou rtconfront s ase tof fa ct s that a r e m a t e r i a l l y i ndi s t i ngui s habl e f r om ade c i s i on of

the [ S upr e m e C our t ] a nd neverthel es s arr i ves a ta r es ul tdi ff er entfr om ou r pre ce dent . ” W i l l i am s v . T

ay lor , 5 2 9 U .S . 3 6 2 , 4 0 5 ( 2 0 0 0 ) . I n 2001, J a m e s C a l l ow a y w a s c ha r ge d i n the S a n M a t e o C ounty S upe r i or C our tw i th w i l l f

ul l y f a i l i ng t o c om pl y w i th C a l i f orni a ’ s S e x O f

f e nde rR e gi s tr a t i on A c t . D ur i ng tr i a l , C a l l ow a y m ove d t o ha ve the j ury de t e rm i ne w he the ra1993 f e lo n y c o n v ic tio n f

o ra s s au lt w ith ad e a d ly w e ap o n a n d w ith f o r c e lik e ly to prod uce grea tbo di l y i nj ury qual i fi ed as hi s s ec on d stri ke un der C al i forni a’ s three s tr ik e s la w . T h a t c o n v ic tio n w o u ld c o u n t a s as tr ik e o n lyif C a llo w a y a c tu a lly i nf l i c t e d gr e a tbodi l y i nj ury upon hi s vi c t i m . T he S upe r i orC our tde ni e d the m o tio n a n d ru le d th a t s u c h ad e te rm in a tio n w a s f o rth e c o u r t to m a k e a t s e n te n c in g . A ft er th e j u ry retu rn ed a g u i l ty v erd i ct , th e S u p eri o r C o u rtm ad e factu al fi n d i n g s, base d o nl y on transcr i pt s and re cords of C al l ow ay ’ s pri or ca se , thatC al l ow ay a c tua l l y i nf

l i c t e d gr e a tbodi l y i nj ury upon hi s a s s aul tvi c t i m a nd, the r e f or e , the 1993 a s s aul tc onvi c t i on qua l i f i e d a s hi s s e c ond s tr i ke . A c c or di ngl y , the c onvi c t i on f o rv i o l a t i n g th e S e x Of

f e n d e rR e g i s tr a t i o n Ac twa s C a l l o way ’ s th i r d s tr i k e . He w as se nt ence d t o a pri son t erm of 25 ye ar s t o l i fe . T he C al i forni a C ou rtof A pp ea l af fi rm ed the conv i ct i on and sent ence , and d eni ed C al l ow ay ’ s s t at e habe as pe t i t i on.4

T he que s t i on w e now c ons i de ri s w he the rthe S upe r i orC our te rr e d i n not p e rm ittin g th e ju ry to d e te rm in e w h e th e rC a llo w a y a c tu a lly in f lic te d g r e a t b o d ily in ju ry u p o n h is 1 9 9 3 a s s au lt v ic tim a n d , th e r e b y , v io la te d C a llo w a y ’s c le a r ly e s tab lis h e d c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t to aju ry tr ia l. B a s e d o n th e r e c e n t o p in io n in W i l son v. Kno w les , 6 3 8 F .3 d 1 2 1 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 1 ) , th e a n s w e rto th e q u e s tio n is ye s. T hu s, C al l ow ay ’ s pet i t i on for habe as r e l i e f m us tbe gr a nt e d. RE V E RS E D.