Kevin G. Little v. Kern County Superior Court, South Division, Taft Branch

294 F.3d 1075 Kevin G. LITTLE, Petitioner-Appellee, v. KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, SOUTH DIVISION, TAFT BRANCH, Respondent-Appellant. No. 01-16238. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted March 13, 2002. Filed June 17, 2002. B.C. Barmann, Sr., and John R. Irby, Bakersfield, CA, for the respondent-appellant. Scott W. Williams, Berkeley, CA, for the petitioner-appellee. Before: REINHARDT, NOONAN and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge REINHARDT; Concurrence by Judge FERNANDEZ. OPINION REINHARDT, Circuit Judge. 1 Kern County Superior Court appeals the district court's grant of Kevin G. Little's ("Little") petition for habeas corpus relief from his criminal conviction for contempt imposed by Judge Romero J. Moench of that court. Kern County contends that the district court erred when it found insufficient evidence to support the conviction. 1 We affirm, but on different grounds. I. Factual and Procedural Background 2 Appellee Kevin G. Little represents Terry Adam Doan and Julie Ann Blind Doan ("the Doans") in a number of cases in Kern County, California. The Doans are rather controversial figures in that community, and they are currently engaged in…

Opinion by Judge REINHARDT; Concurrence by Judge FERNANDEZ.

OPINION

Kern County Superior Court appeals the district court’s grant of Kevin G. Little’s (“Little”) petition for habeas corpus relief from his criminal conviction for contempt imposed by Judge Romero J. Moench of that court. Kern County contends that the district court erred when it found insufficient evidence to support the conviction. 1 We affirm, but on different grounds.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Appellee Kevin G. Little represents Terry Adam Doan and Julie Ann Blind Doan (“the Doans”) in a number of cases in Kern County, California. The Doans are rather controversial figures in that community, and they are currently engaged in a civil rights action arising out of the alleged misconduct of two police officers of the City of Taft. The Doans allege that a Taft officer sexually assaulted Julie Blind-Doan while she was in custody, and that along with his- partner, the officer harassed her on a number of subsequent occasions.

The contempt charges arise out of Little’s representation of the Doans in their April 1997 nolo contendere pleas to misdemeanor child endangerment. Little was substituted as counsel…

concurring:

Part III-A of the majority opinion demonstrates beyond per-adventure that Little was not given proper notice of the contempt proceeding. That being so, there is no real need for the disquisition in part III-B, which unnecessarily declares that the trial judge was a biased judicial officer. While Little did all he could to create a bias record, that is far from saying that Little succeeded in creating bias.

Thus, while I concur in part III-A and in the ultimate result, I do not concur in part III-B.