Michael Jerome Powell v. George M. Galaza, Warden

In the middle of Michael Jerome Powell’s trial for failure to appear at a sentencing hearing, the trial court instructed the jury that Powell’s own testimony satisfied the specific intent element of the crime. Such an instruction is impermissible under the principles of Carella v. California, 491 U.S. 263, 109 S.Ct. 2419 , 105 L.Ed.2d 218 (1989), and Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 , 99 S.Ct. 2450 , 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979), and the reasoning of Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 , 113 S.Ct. 2078 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993), dictates that harmless error review is inapplicable. Because the California Court of Appeal failed to apply, or even cite, the proper controlling Supreme Court authority, we reverse the district court’s denial of the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Factual and Procedural Background

Michael Jerome Powell is serving a sentence of 29 years to life in prison for failing to appear at a sentencing hearing. Having pled guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to sell, Powell faced a maximum jail term of four years. Powell testified that, although he was willing to serve his prison sentence, he skipped his sentencing hearing because he feared he would be killed…