Albert Lucero v. Kim Holland, 902 F.3d 979

Albert Lucero was convicted in 2007 of premeditated attempted murder, possession of a shank in jail (Cal. Penal Code § 4502(a)), and participation in a criminal street gang; convictions arose from a coordinated assault in Stanislaus County Jail.
A small handwritten gang note (“huila”), authored by codefendant Armando Lopez and describing the assault and naming participants, was admitted at the joint trial but expressly instructed to be considered only against its author.
The California Court of Appeal found a Bruton violation as to gang-status evidence but deemed the error harmless; the state supreme court denied review.
Lucero filed a federal habeas petition raising (1) a Bruton/Confrontation Clause challenge to admission of the huila and (2) a Jackson v. Virginia sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge to the § 4502(a) shank conviction.
The Ninth Circuit held the huila was nontestimonial and thus Bruton/Crawford protections did not apply; but it found insufficient evidence to sustain Lucero’s conviction for possession/control of the shank and granted habeas relief as to that count.

Issue	Lucero’s Argument	Holland’s Argument	Held
Whether Bruton’s rule applies when the codefendant statement is nontestimonial (huila)	Admission of the huila violated Lucero’s Sixth Amendment confrontation rights under Bruton	Bruton applies only to testimonial statements; the huila was nontestimonial and admissible against its author	The huila was nontestimonial under Crawford/primary-purpose test; Bruton protections do not apply; denial of habeas on Bruton claim affirmed
Whether evidence was sufficient under Jackson to prove Lucero possessed/controlled the shank used in the attack (Cal. Penal Code § 4502(a))	Evidence of coordinated attack and gang-expert testimony about access to weapons sufficed to infer constructive possession	There was sufficient circumstantial evidence for a rational juror to find constructive possession	Evidence was insufficient to prove Lucero personally possessed/controlled the shank beyond a reasonable doubt; habeas granted as to § 4502(a) conviction

Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (rules joint-trial admission of a nontestifying codefendant’s facially incriminating confession may violate Confrontation Clause)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause applies only to testimonial out-of-court statements)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence: whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (written statements functionally identical to in-court testimony are testimonial)
Ohio v. Clark, 135 S. Ct. 2173 (primary-purpose test for determining whether statements are testimonial)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (statements are testimonial if the primary purpose is to establish facts for prosecution)
Coleman v. Johnson, 566 U.S. 650 (AEDPA deference: state court’s sufficiency-of-evidence ruling is overturned only if objectively unreasonable)
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (AEDPA deference principles)