49 Cal.App.5th 1091
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- In 1998 Steven Haden pleaded no contest to corporal injury on a spouse; at a subsequent court trial the judge found true two prior North Dakota robbery convictions and imposed a 25-years-to-life Three Strikes sentence.
- Haden appealed and lost; the California Supreme Court denied review in 2000. Over years he pursued multiple habeas petitions, including one invoking Descamps, which was denied as not retroactive.
- In 2017 the California Supreme Court decided People v. Gallardo, disapproved People v. McGee, and held a sentencing court may not make independent factual findings about the defendant’s underlying conduct to impose sentence enhancements — it may consider only facts established by the conviction or admitted in the plea.
- The California Supreme Court transferred Haden’s later habeas petition to the Court of Appeal and ordered the Secretary to show cause why Haden is not entitled to relief under Gallardo and why Gallardo should not apply retroactively to final judgments.
- The Second District’s In re Milton concluded Gallardo is not retroactive to final convictions under federal and California standards; this court agreed and denied Haden’s petition because his conviction was final long before Gallardo.
- The Court noted separately that, on the merits, Haden’s North Dakota charging documents expressly alleged completed takings with a knife, so even under Gallardo those priors qualify as California serious felonies/strikes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gallardo applies retroactively to convictions final before its announcement | Haden: Gallardo announces a rule that must be applied retroactively to final convictions (Johnson state standard) | Attorney General: Gallardo is a new procedural rule and not retroactive under Teague; applying it retroactively would be disruptive | Court: Gallardo is not retroactive to final convictions (adopts Milton analysis); habeas denied |
| Whether sentencing court’s pre-1999 factfinding violated Gallardo | Haden: trial court impermissibly made independent factual findings about his North Dakota priors | AG: even if Gallardo applied, Haden’s priors still qualify; also retroactivity bars relief | Court: need not reach merits because Gallardo not retroactive; separately finds Haden’s plea admissions showed completed thefts so priors qualify |
| Whether Descamps/divisible-statute doctrine limits Gallardo’s record review | Haden: Sixth Amendment limited to divisible statutes; ND statute indivisible so court shouldn’t look beyond elements | AG: Gallardo controls and permits limited record review of plea/conviction documents regardless of divisible/indivisible distinction | Court: Gallardo rejects importing ACCA/divisibility rules; limited record review allowed without that distinction |
| Whether Haden’s North Dakota convictions qualify as California strikes under Gallardo | Haden: ND robbery statute overbroad, could encompass non-California robberies | AG/Haden-court analysis: charging informations alleged "took" property while threatening with a knife; plea was to robbery as charged | Held: Haden admitted facts (pleaded as charged) showing completed thefts with a weapon; priors qualify as serious felonies/strikes under California law |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Gallardo, 4 Cal.5th 120 (2017) (California Supreme Court rule limiting sentencing factfinding about prior convictions)
- People v. McGee, 38 Cal.4th 682 (2006) (prior authority disapproved by Gallardo)
- In re Milton, 42 Cal.App.5th 977 (2019) (Second Dist. holding Gallardo not retroactive to final convictions)
- In re Brown, 45 Cal.App.5th 699 (2020) (Fourth Dist. divided decision concluding Gallardo is retroactive)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (federal retroactivity framework for new procedural rules)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (limits on using prior-conviction records under ACCA; relied on in Gallardo)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (jury-trial principle underlying Gallardo)
- Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (2004) (Apprendi-type rules not retroactive under Teague)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (divisible/indivisible statute analysis in federal sentencing context)
- In re Johnson, 3 Cal.3d 404 (1970) (California purpose-based retroactivity test)
- In re Gomez, 45 Cal.4th 650 (2009) (California may apply more generous retroactivity than federal courts)
- People v. Tenorio, 3 Cal.3d 89 (1970) (example of retroactive application to sentencing-only rule)