Darrel Smith, Sr. v. Kathy Mendoza-Powers, et al, No. 08-17367 (9th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED SEP 29 2010 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AUGUSTINE PENA-SILVA, Petitioner - Appellant, No. 08-17637 D.C. No. 2:06-cv-02682-ALA v. MEMORANDUM * K. PROSPER, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Arthur L. Alarcón, Circuit Judge, Presiding Submitted September 13, 2010** Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Augustine Pena-Silva appeals from the district court s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Pena-Silva contends that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated pursuant to Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), and Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007), when the state trial court engaged in fact-finding to impose an upper-term sentence. At sentencing, the trial court made the findings that Pena-Silva was on parole at the time of the crimes and that his prior adult convictions were numerous and of increasing seriousness. The California Court of Appeal s rejection of PenaSilva s Sixth Amendment claim based on the prior conviction exception under Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), was not contrary to, or . . . an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). See Kessee v. Mendoza-Powers, 574 F.3d 675, 678-79 (9th Cir. 2009). Because, under Kessee, the state court s interpretation of the prior conviction exception does not contravene AEDPA standards, id. at 678, Pena-Silva s challenge to the district court s harmless error analysis is moot. AFFIRMED. 2 08-17637
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
