Taylor v. Cate, No. 11-55247 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePetitioner was convicted of felony murder predicated on attempted robbery. The State subsequently believed petitioner that he was not the actual shooter and the state trial court resentenced petitioner as an aider and abettor to a term of imprisonment with the possibility of parole. Petitioner objected to resentencing, contending that the jury had not found him guilty of aiding and abetting the robbery, and that he was entitled to a new trial. On appeal, petitioner challenged the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1). The court concluded that the right to a jury in this case means that petitioner had the right to have a jury decide what conduct he committed. Resentencing on the basis of facts that the jury did not find, and that conflicted with what the jury did find, violated petitioner's Sixth Amendment rights. Further, there was no trial error that could be subject to harmless error analysis. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel reversed the district court’s judgment denying a habeas corpus petition and remanded with instructions to grant the writ in a case in which Ronald Taylor, who was convicted and originally sentenced for felony murder based on a jury finding that Taylor was the shooter, was resentenced as an aider and abettor after the State of California concluded that he was not the shooter. The panel held that the right to a jury trial in this case means that Taylor had the right to have a jury decide what conduct he committed, and that resentencing on the basis of facts that the jury did not find, and indeed that conflicted with what the jury did find, violated his Sixth Amendment rights. The panel wrote that there was no trial error that could be subject to harmless error analysis, and concluded that Taylor is entitled to a new trial. Judge Clifton concurred in part and dissented in part. He agreed that constitutional error arose when the State resentenced Taylor as an aider and abettor. But he disagreed that the correct remedy is to grant the writ and order a retrial. He would hold that the error in this case is amenable to harmless error review, and would remand for further proceedings to determine whether Taylor suffered prejudice.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on June 5, 2015.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on January 21, 2016.
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.