Armis Arrendondo v. Dwight Neven

Opinion by Judge BERZON; Concurrence by Judge FERNANDEZ.

BERZON, Circuit Judge:

Armis Arrendondo represented himself against theft charges at trial and was sentenced under Nevada’s habitual criminal statute, Nev.Rev.Stat. § 207.010, to two concurrent life sentences, with the possibility of parole after ten years. He contested his continued detention via a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 , and now appeals the district court’s (1) denial, on the merits, of his claim of invalid waiver of his right to counsel and (2) dismissal as unexhausted of his claim of denial of the use of compulsory process. Compelled by the statutory limits on our habeas corpus review of state convictions, we affirm.

I.

In September 2003, a Las Vegas homeowner returned from a vacation in Colorado to find his residence ransacked, several of his possessions missing, and his Winnebago motor home gone from its garage. *1126 The ensuing investigation led authorities to Arrendondo. Nevada indicted him on one count of possession of a stolen vehicle and another of possession of stolen property. See Nev.Rev.Stat. §§ 205.273, 205.275.

At Arrendondo’s arraignment, he pleaded not guilty. In the…

concurring:

I concur in the result reached by the majority.

I agree that no clearly established Supreme Court law requires a district court to do more than inform a defendant of the maximum penalties for the offenses he was chargéd with at the time he decided td represent himself. See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835 , 95 S.Ct. 2525, 2541 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975); see also Iowa v. Tovar, 541 U.S. 77, 87-94 , 124 S.Ct. 1379, 1387-90 , 158 L.Ed.2d 209 (2004). Similarly, I agree that there is not a sufficient basis for extending the Court’s prior holdings regarding advice on maximum penalties to the issues presented in this case. See White v. Woodall , — U.S. -, -, 134 S.Ct. 1697, 1705-07 , 188 L.Ed.2d 698 (2014). Moreover, Arrendondo did not. exhaust his compulsory process claim in the courts of Nevada, and I agree that his failure to do so bars our consideration of that claim.

However, I am reluctant to rule on issues that are not necessary to our decision or to engage in lengthy discus'sions or musings that need not be pursued at this time. Indeed, I see great danger wheh we say more than is required to decide the case before us; our doing so may well create unintended…

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARMIS ARRENDONDO, No. 11-15581 Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 2:07-cv-01312-

JCM-GWF

DWIGHT NEVEN, Warden;

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE

OF NEVADA, OPINION

Respondents-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted July 8, 2013—San Francisco, California

Filed August 18, 2014

Before: Ferdinand F. Fernandez, Richard A. Paez, and Marsha S. Berzon, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Berzon; Concurrence by Judge Fernandez SUMMARY*

Criminal Law

The panel affirmed the district court’s (1) denial, on the merits, of a claim of invalid waiver of the right to counsel and (2) dismissal as unexhausted of a claim of denial of the use of compulsory process, in Nevada state prisoner Armis Arrendondo’s habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

The panel held that it was not unreasonable for the Nevada Supreme Court to conclude that Arrendondo waived his right to counsel knowingly and intelligently, where…