Case Name: Adam GONZALEZ, Petitioner-Appellee, v. James HAMLET, Warden, Respondent-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-07
Citations: 224 F. App'x 595
Docket Number: No. 05-17405
Parties: Adam GONZALEZ, Petitioner-Appellee, v. James HAMLET, Warden, Respondent-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GRABER, McKEOWN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 224
Pages: 595–596

Head Matter:
Adam GONZALEZ, Petitioner-Appellee, v. James HAMLET, Warden, Respondent-Appellant.
No. 05-17405.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 2, 2007.
Filed March 7, 2007.
David M. Porter, Esq., FPDCA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Sacramento, CA, for Petitioner-Appellee.
Justain P. Riley, Dag, AGCA-Office Of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Warden, Respondent-Appellant.
Before: GRABER, McKEOWN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The sole question presented in this appeal by Respondent warden is whether the district court erred as a matter of law when it applied Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), retroactively to the hearsay/confrontation claim of Petitioner Adam Gonzalez. The Supreme Court of the United States now has answered that question in the affirmative. In Whorton v. Bockting, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 1173, 167 L.Ed.2d 1 (2007), the Court held that the Crawford rule does not apply retroactively to cases, like this one, that are on collateral review. Petitioner's direct review became final in 2003. Accordingly, we must conclude that the district court applied an incorrect legal standard and that, on remand, it must apply pre-Crawford principles to Petitioner's claim.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.