Ambrose Gill v. Robert J. Ayers, Warden Attorney General of the State of California

322 F.3d 678 Ambrose GILL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert J. AYERS, Warden; Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents-Appellees. No. 01-55808. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted September 12, 2002. Filed March 6, 2003. COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED Ralph H. Goldsen, Goleta, CA, for the petitioner-appellant. Teresa Torreblanca, Deputy Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for the respondents-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; Alicemarie H. Stotler, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-00-00541-AHS. Before: DAVID R. THOMPSON and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges and SCHWARZER, * Senior District Judge. Opinion by Judge DAVID R. THOMPSON; Dissent by Judge RAWLINSON DAVID R. THOMPSON, Circuit Judge. 1 * California state prisoner Ambrose Gill appeals the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . Gill, serving a sentence of 55 years to life under California's "Three Strikes Law," contends that he was denied due process of law at his Three Strikes sentencing hearing. 2 In 1976, Gill was convicted of one count of assault with a deadly…

Opinion by Judge DAVID R. THOMPSON; Dissent by Judge RAWLINSON

I

California state prisoner Ambrose Gill appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . Gill, serving a sentence of 55 years to life under California’s “Three Strikes Law,” contends that he was denied due process of law at his Three Strikes sentencing hearing.

*681 In 1976, Gill was convicted of one count of assault with a deadly weapon and three counts of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury, all in violation of California Penal Code section 245(a)(collectively, the “1976 conviction”). Under California’s Three Strikes scheme, the 1976 conviction could only count as a “strike” upon a finding that Gill had personally used a dangerous or deadly weapon during the assault. See CaLPenal Code §§ 667(d) and (e), 1192.7(c)(23). At Gill’s Three Strikes sentencing hearing, the court considered documentation from the record of the 1976 conviction, including Gill’s own statements as paraphrased in a probation department report. The court, however, refused to allow Gill to testify to explain or refute the statements attributed to him. Because…

Dissenting:

I respectfully dissent.

As we recently acknowledged, federal habeas relief should not be granted lightly. Rather, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) “imposes a highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings[;] demands that state court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt”[;] and mandates “our full respect” for rulings of our “co-equal judiciary.” Clark v. Murphy, 317 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2003) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

With those cautions in mind, I proceed to the first inquiry accompanying habeas review: “whether the state court erred at all.” Id. at 1044 (citation omitted). If the state court committed no error, our habeas inquiry ends. See id.

Petitioner Ambrose Gill (“Gill”) was convicted in 1976 of one count of assault with a deadly weapon and three counts of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. During an interview with a probation officer, Gill admitted that he personally wielded a baseball bat during a Saturday-night fracas. Fast forward to 1997, with Gill facing a possible life sentence under California’s “Three Strikes Law.” Twenty-one years…