Michael Delongis v. Derrick Ollison

Good Law
488 F. App'x 262
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 23, 201208-17143California382 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Michael DeLongis (“DeLongis”) was sentenced to 23 years to life for second-degree murder and corporal injury to a spouse. He appeals the denial of his habe-as corpus petition. DeLongis alleges that his due process and fair trial rights were violated by the state trial court’s failure to provide voluntary intoxication and mental disorder instructions. He argues that, absent these alleged errors, he would have been convicted of manslaughter, not second degree murder.

Under California law, DeLongis could be convicted of murder if the jury found he killed his wife with implied malice. CaLPenal Code §§ 187-88. Malice is implied “when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.” Cal.Penal Code § 188. Implied malice also exists if the defendant “actually appreciated the risk of his actions.” People v. Superior Court, 183 Cal.App.4th 690, 697 , 107 Cal.Rptr.3d 576 (Cal.Ct.App.2010); accord Ho v. Carey, 332 F.3d 587, 592 (9th Cir.2003).

Even if DeLongis was entitled to the jury instructions, we agree with the district court that the alleged errors didn’t have a “substantial and injurious effect or…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.