Wilson v. Knowles
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7035
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Wilson pleaded no contest in 1993 to gross vehicular manslaughter while DUI and to proximately causing bodily injury; no trial occurred and he served 1 year in a residential addiction treatment facility.
- From Reno to California, Wilson drove with Horvat; Horvat gave him keys to drive; they picked up a hitchhiker, Haessly; a high-speed crash killed Haessly and injured Horvat.
- In 2000, a jury convicted Wilson of DUI with a prior felony; a judge designated the 1993 convictions as the first two strikes under 667(b)-(i) and sentenced 25 years to life.
- Prosecutor introduced 1993 information and transcripts to prove the prior conviction as a strike; the 2000 judge made explicit findings that the prior conviction allegation was true.
- California Court of Appeal affirmed; Justice Rushing dissented, would have held court violated Apprendi; state supreme court denied merits; Wilson sought federal habeas relief; district court denied relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2000 findings violated Apprendi by increasing sentence beyond the statutory maximum | Wilson | Wilson’s 2000 findings exceeded Apprendi’s scope | Yes; violates Apprendi and the prior-conviction exception does not justify these findings |
| Whether the findings fall within the prior-conviction exception to Apprendi | Wilson | Prior-conviction exception may extend to underlying facts | No; not within permissible interpretation of the exception |
| Whether the error was harmless given the record | Wilson | Error harmless | No; cannot assume the same facts would have led to conviction; speculative and improper |
| Whether exhaustion of state remedies was satisfied | Wilson | Not exhausted at state appellate level | Exhaustion satisfied; state Supreme Court denied merits and considered the claim on the merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (limits jury trial to all elements that raise maximum sentence, except prior convictions)
- Kessee v. Mendoza-Powers, 574 F.3d 675 (9th Cir. 2009) (discusses contours of the prior-conviction exception)
- DeWeaver v. Runnels, 556 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2009) (limits extension of prior-conviction exception to new contexts)
- United States v. Brown, 417 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2005) (per curiam addressing related sentencing-fact questions)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (U.S. 2011) (summary of habeas jurisprudence for AEDPA review)
- Santiago v. United States, 268 F.3d 151 (2d Cir. 2001) (discusses scope of fact-finding for prior convictions)
- People v. Verlinde, 100 Cal.App.4th 1146 (Cal. App. 2002) (California context on injuries and causation in prior-offense framing)