Johnson v. Montgomery, No. 15-56007 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a petition for habeas relief challenging a sentencing enhancement for a prior nonjury juvenile conviction and for a gang-related crime. Petitioner argued that the evidence supporting the gang enhancement was constitutionally insufficient under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979), and that the enhancement for his nonjury juvenile conviction violated Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).
The panel held that it was objectively unreasonable to conclude that the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find the robbery was committed "in association with" a gang; but it was not objectively unreasonable to conclude that the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find the robbery was committed "for the benefit of" a gang. The panel also held that the juvenile conviction claim was procedurally barred, and the sentencing enhancements based on nonjury juvenile convictions did not violate any clearly established federal law as determined by the United States Supreme Court.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of California state prisoner Ronneld Johnson’s habeas corpus petition challenging enhancements applied at sentencing for his conviction for two counts of robbery. Johnson argued that the evidence supporting an enhancement for a gang-related crime was constitutionally insufficient under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979). The panel held that it was objectively unreasonable for the California Court of Appeal to conclude that the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find the robbery was committed “in association with” a gang, but that any error regarding gang “association” was harmless because the California Court of Appeal’s alternative conclusion—that the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find the robbery was committed “for the benefit of” a gang—was not objectively unreasonable. Johnson also argued that an enhancement for a prior nonjury juvenile adjudication violates Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). The panel held that even assuming that the California Supreme Court should have decided that Johnson’s Apprendi claims fell within an exception to the In re Dixon procedural bar, Johnson would not have been entitled to a reduced sentence because the California Supreme Court would have applied People v. JOHNSON V. MONTGOMERY 3 Nguyen, 209 P.3d 946 (Cal. 2009) (interpreting Apprendi’s exception for prior convictions to cover nonjury juvenile adjudications), and reasonably upheld the sentencing enhancement based on Johnson’s juvenile conviction. Concurring in part and dissenting in part, Judge Berzon agreed with the majority as to Johnson’s Apprendi claim, but did not agree that a rational jury could have found that Johnson committed robbery for the benefit of a gang totally distinct from his own.
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.