Creech v. Frauenheim, No. 13-16709 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, convicted of assault with a firearm and child endangerment, appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas petition, on the basis of alleged violations of his Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights. The court held that it was not unreasonable for the California Court of Appeal to conclude that there was sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to convict petitioner of the assault with a firearm and child endangerment charges. The court also held that it was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law to conclude that California’s revised determinate sentencing law, which provides trial courts with discretion to decide among three sentences, is constitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey. Therefore, the court rejected petitioner's challenges to his sentence. The court affirmed the judgment
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of California state prisoner Willis Lavone Creech’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his convictions for assault with a firearm and child endangerment. The panel held that it was not unreasonable for the California Court of Appeal to conclude that there was sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to convict Creech of the assault with a firearm and child endangerment charges. The panel also held that it was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law to conclude that California’s revised determinate sentencing law, which provides trial courts with discretion to decide among three sentences, is constitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey.
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.