Clarence Roberts v. Mike McDonald
537 F. App'x 700
9th Cir.2013Background
- Roberts challenged a district court denial of habeas relief.
- He argued a constitutional right to be present at his resentencing and ineffective assistance of counsel.
- AEDPA governs the review and requires deference to California courts' factual and legal determinations.
- California courts held Roberts had no right to be present at the Romero motion-based resentencing and that the trial court lacked discretion to strike prior convictions.
- Even if some discretion existed, Roberts did not meet the Three Strikes threshold, and any presence would be only a shadow of the right.
- Court held Roberts’ absence was harmless and trial counsel performance was not deficient under Strickland.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to be present at resentencing | Roberts argues due process requires presence | State court decisions deny a mandatory right to be present | Denied; no constitutional right to be present given lack of material benefit |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel should have pursued additional Romero arguments | Performance not deficient; further arguments futile | Denied; no prejudice as second Romero motion unlikely to succeed |
Key Cases Cited
- Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730 (U.S. 1987) (presence required only if it furthers fairness at a critical stage)
- Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1934) (presence may be unnecessary when benefit is shadow-like)
- Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (U.S. 2005) (constrained by statutory framework for prior-conviction strikes)
- People v. Williams, 17 Cal. 4th 148 (Cal. 1998) (California Three Strikes framework limits discretion and resentencing options)