Michael Jerome Powell v. George M. Galaza, Warden

On Remand from the United States Supreme Court.

OPINION

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 decision of the California Court of Appeal is contrary to the reasoning and the result of these controlling Supreme Court authorities, we reverse the district court’s denial of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Factual and Procedural Background

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…