Theodore Vaden v. Darrell Adams
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Petitioner Theodore B. Vaden appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging the sentencing court’s imposition of a 5-year sentence enhancement under California Penal Code § 667(a). The record establishes that the sentencing court’s imposition of the enhancement was an Ap-prendi error. Because we find the error to be harmless, we affirm.
This court reviews de novo a district court’s decision to deny a habeas petition. Yee v. Duncan, 463 F.3d 893, 897 (9th Cir.2006). An Apprendi error is harmless “if the court finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the result ‘would have been the same absent the error.’ ” United States v. Zepeda-Martinez, 470 F.3d 909, 913 (9th Cir.2006) (quoting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 19 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999)). Courts can find an error harmless only “where the record contains ‘overwhelming’ and ‘uncontroverted’ evidence supporting an element of the crime” and not “if ‘the defendant contested the omitted element and raised evidence sufficient to support a contrary finding.’ ” Id. (quoting Neder, 527 U.S. at 17-19 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 ).