Gerald Chavis, Petitioner-appellant, v. County of Los Angeles; Attorney General of California;superior Court of the State of California for Thecounty of Los Angeles, Respondents-appellees, 959 F.2d 239 (9th Cir. 1992)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 959 F.2d 239 (9th Cir. 1992)

Submitted March 25, 1992. *Decided April 1, 1992


Before JAMES R. BROWNING, TANG and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

Gerald Chavis, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. We review de novo, Norris v. Risley, 878 F.2d 1178, 1180 (9th Cir. 1989), and we affirm.

Chavis, who was convicted of assault with a caustic chemical in violation of California Penal Code § 244, alleges that the state court subjected him to double jeopardy by enhancing his sentence under California Penal Code § 12022.7 for infliction of great bodily injury. He asserts that his enhanced sentence violates the double jeopardy clause because "great bodily injury" is necessarily an element of assault with a caustic chemical.

The district court properly determined that "great bodily injury" is not an element of assault with a caustic chemical under section 244. See Cal.Penal Code § 244; People v. Warren, 223 Cal. App. 2d 798, 800-01, 36 Cal. Rptr. 127, 129 (1963). Accordingly, enhancement under section 12022.7 does not violate the double jeopardy clause. See Gryger v. Burke, 334 U.S. 728, 732 (1948); May v. Sumner, 622 F.2d 997, 998-99 (9th Cir. 1980).

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3