772 F.3d 842
9th Cir.2014Background
- In 1987 two men committed an attempted robbery at a fast-food restaurant; the owner, Lewis Lim, was shot and killed. Ronald Taylor was arrested; his palm print was found on the getaway car.
- Taylor was tried on felony murder (predicated on attempted robbery), attempted robbery, and grand theft auto; jury found the special circumstance (murder in commission of robbery) and firearm-use allegations true, effectively finding Taylor was the shooter. He was sentenced to life without parole.
- Years later Taylor asserted his cousin Hugh Hayes Jr. was the shooter. Investigators and the district attorney concluded new evidence supported that Hayes was the shooter; Hayes was tried and acquitted in 1999.
- California moved to recall Taylor’s sentence; the State conceded Taylor was not the shooter but argued he was properly convicted as an aider and abettor of the attempted robbery and sought resentencing accordingly. The trial court resentenced Taylor as an aider and abettor to 25 years to life.
- Taylor challenged resentencing on the ground that the jury never found him guilty as an aider and abettor; state courts declined to resolve that claim on procedural grounds. Federal habeas review followed.
- The Ninth Circuit majority held resentencing Taylor as an aider and abettor based on facts the jury did not find violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments and ordered the writ granted; a concurrence/dissent would have applied harmless-error review and remanded for factual prejudice inquiry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Taylor) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether resentencing Taylor as an aider and abettor violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments | Resentencing imposed punishment for conduct (aider-and-abettor liability) the jury considered and expressly found he did not commit; he was entitled to a jury determination on those facts | The jury was instructed on aiding-and-abetting; the State may resentencing based on alternative theory supported by evidence and on the State’s concession of innocence as to the special circumstance | Court: Resentencing based on facts the jury did not find (and that contradicted the jury’s verdict that Taylor was the shooter) violated the Sixth Amendment and due process; grant writ and remand for new trial |
| Whether AEDPA deference applies | Taylor argued state courts did not adjudicate the jury-trial claim on the merits, so federal court should review de novo | State contended state-court resentencing decision was reasonable and entitled to AEDPA deference | Court: AEDPA did not apply because state courts did not address the claim on the merits; federal review de novo |
| Whether harmless-error analysis applies to this resentencing error | Taylor contended harmless-error is inapplicable because resentencing relied on extrinsic evidence that contradicts the jury’s express finding | State and concurring judge argued the error is trial-type and amenable to harmless-error review; remedy should be remand for prejudice inquiry | Court: Majority rejected harmless-error review here because no jury verdict supports resentencing; held error requires new trial; concurrence dissented on remedy and urged harmless-error remand |
| Remedy: vacatur/ new trial vs. remand for harmless-error | Taylor sought a new trial (or release) because Sixth Amendment violated | State urged affirmance or harmless-error review and remand | Court: Ordered grant of habeas writ and remand with instructions to grant the writ (i.e., new trial); concurrence would remand to district court to assess prejudice under harmless-error standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt any fact that increases penalty beyond statutory maximum)
- United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (1995) (jury trial right requires jury determination of facts that constitute elements)
- Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (1993) (constitutional error where jury verdict rests on unconstitutionally vague or invalid instruction)
- Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46 (1991) (when multiple theories are presented, jury may be trusted to rely on theory supported by evidence)
- Hedgpeth v. Pulido, 555 U.S. 57 (2008) (error in presenting an invalid theory to jury is subject to harmless-error review)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (failure to submit an element to the jury may be harmless error in appropriate circumstances)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) (habeas relief requires demonstration of substantial and injurious effect of constitutional error absent structural error)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (federal habeas relief is a guard against extreme malfunction in state criminal justice systems)