Clem

Clem v. Schriro

Good Law
363 F. App'x 436
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 14, 2009No. 08-15333California501 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Arizona state prisoner Brian Clem appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his five consecutive sentences imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for three counts of manslaughter and two counts of aggravated assault in connection with the same drunk driving incident that produced five victims. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

Clem contends that his five consecutive sentences totaling 22 years imprisonment violate the Double Jeopardy Clause under the same-element test of Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932), because they resulted from a single drunk driving incident. Clem further contends that the rule of lenity requires enforcement of Arizona Revised Statute section 13-116, which prohibits imposition of consecutive sentences for the offenses resulting from the same “act.” Finally, Clem contends that Blockburger and its progeny should be reversed.

Clem failed to demonstrate that the state court’s imposition of five consecutive sentences is contrary to or an unreasonable application of controlling federal law. See 28…

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.