Francisco Romero v. Charles Ryan
693 F. App'x 580
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Romero drove in a car accident that killed four people and injured three, and was convicted of four counts of manslaughter and three counts of aggravated assault under Arizona law.
- At sentencing the trial judge imposed an aggravated sentence (31 years) based on findings about harm to victims and their families.
- Romero argued on habeas that imposition of the aggravated sentence violated the Sixth Amendment under Blakely v. Washington because the judge relied on facts not admitted by Romero or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The State conceded there was Blakely error but argued the error was harmless because the record supports the aggravating factors.
- The district court denied habeas relief; Romero appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which reviewed the denial de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentencing judge violated the Sixth Amendment under Blakely by relying on facts not found by a jury | Romero: judge relied on facts not admitted or jury-found beyond a reasonable doubt, so sentence unconstitutional | State: concedes Blakely error but contends error was harmless given evidence of harm | Court: Blakely error existed but was harmless; affirmed |
| Whether evidence at sentencing would have permitted a jury to find an aggravating factor beyond a reasonable doubt | Romero: sentencing evidence insufficient to guarantee a jury verdict beyond reasonable doubt | State: victims’ and families’ testimony plainly established physical, emotional, financial harm | Court: no grave doubt a reasonable juror would find the aggravating factor beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Whether once one aggravating factor is jury-found, judge may consider other facts in sentencing | Romero: (implicit) judge’s additional factfinding impermissible to increase sentence | State: under Arizona law, after one Blakely-compliant factor, judge may consider other facts within statutory range | Court: follows Arizona precedent and Ninth Circuit precedent permitting judge factfinding after jury finds an aggravating factor |
| Whether harmless-error standard is met on habeas review | Romero: error not harmless if grave doubt exists | State: harmless because overwhelming sentencing evidence | Court: applies Estrella standard and finds error harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) (holding judge may not impose sentence above statutory maximum authorized by jury-found facts)
- Estrella v. Ollison, 668 F.3d 593 (9th Cir. 2011) (harmless-error standard: error not harmless if there is "grave doubt" a jury would find aggravating factor beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Visciotti v. Martel, 839 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2016) (standard of review: de novo review of district court denial of habeas petition)
- Butler v. Curry, 528 F.3d 624 (9th Cir. 2008) (if at least one aggravating factor relied on by judge was established consistent with Sixth Amendment, sentence is constitutional)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (once a jury finds a fact that increases the maximum sentence, judge may engage in additional factfinding within that range)
- State v. Martinez, 115 P.3d 618 (Ariz. 2005) (once a jury establishes one Blakely-compliant aggravating factor, judge may consider additional circumstances when sentencing)