Miranda v. Anchondo
654 F.3d 911
9th Cir.2012Background
- Miranda, Pascua Yaqui member, was convicted by tribal court of eight criminal violations from a single transaction.
- Tribal sentence totaled 910 days: two consecutive 365-day terms (aggravated assault), two consecutive 90-day terms (threatening and intimidating), two concurrent 60-day terms (endangerment), and two concurrent 30-day terms (disorderly conduct), time-served reduced by 114 days.
- District court granted habeas relief, holding ICRA § 1302(7) barred consecutive sentences exceeding one year for multiple offenses from one transaction.
- Appellants Anchondo and Nielsen challenged, arguing the statute permits up to one year per offense and allows multiple offenses to be served consecutively.
- The court held that § 1302(7) unambiguously permits up to one year per discrete offense, reversing the district court’s grant of habeas relief.
- The opinion also clarifies waiver rules regarding untimely objections to magistrate judges’ recommendations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether untimely objections waive appeal rights | Miranda, by appellee, argues no automatic waiver. | Anchondo/Nielsen contend untimely objections impede appeal rights. | Untimely objections do not automatically waive appeal rights. |
| Whether § 1302(7) permits one year per offense for multiple violations | Miranda argues “any one offense” means a single transaction. | Anchondo/Nielsen contend the phrase allows multiple offenses. | § 1302(7) unambiguously allows up to one year per discrete offense. |
Key Cases Cited
- McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185 (9th Cir. 1980) (waiver rule not broad as to all legal conclusions)
- Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991) (limits of waiver for failure to object to R&R)
- Bell v. United States, 349 U.S. 81 (S. Ct. 1955) (single transaction vs. multiple offenses; rule of lenity not applied to separate offenses)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (test for whether offenses are distinct)
- Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37 (S. Ct. 1979) (ordinary meaning of terms in statute (in pari materia))