Kennick v. Superior Court of State of Cal., Los Angeles County

• Citation: 736 F.2d 1277
• Decision Date: 18 July 1984
• Docket Number: No. 82-5859,82-5859
• Parties: Gary KENNICK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent-Appellee.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

Page 1277

736 F.2d 1277

Gary KENNICK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS

ANGELES, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 82-5859.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 9, 1983.

Decided June 5, 1984.

As Amended July 18, 1984.

Judith M. Mitchell, Law Offices of Russell Iungerich, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner-appellant.

Christine C. Franklin, Deputy Atty. Gen., Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Before BROWNING and NORRIS, Circuit Judges, and WILLIAMS ^* District Judge.

NORRIS, Circuit Judge:

Appellant Gary Kennick was convicted of four counts of grand theft after a jury trial in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles. He now challenges this conviction in a habeas corpus proceeding brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2253.

I

On June 28, 1978, appellant was sentenced to three years probation. The probation sentence was subject to several conditions, the most important of which was that appellant spend the first year of the sentence in county jail. At the time of sentencing, appellant was also granted bail on appeal in the amount of $2,000, and a stay was ordered to July 12, 1978, pending posting of the appeal bond.

Shortly thereafter, bail was posted. Apparently believing that only the jail condition of his probation had been stayed by the June 28 order and subsequent posting of bail, appellant began reporting to the Probation Department pursuant to the court's probation order. Appellant continued to report to the Probation Department during the three-year pendency of his appeal. ¹

In due course, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of conviction. The California Supreme Court subsequently denied a hearing, and the remittitur issued on September 16, 1981.

Meanwhile, on June 8, 1981, prior to the conclusion of appellant's appeal, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Ricardo Torres ordered the appellant's offense reduced to a misdemeanor, terminated appellant's probation, and dismissed the case.

Despite Judge Torres' order, upon issuance of the remittitur, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Julius A. Leetham exonerated bail and remanded appellant to custody to begin compliance with the terms and conditions of the June 28 probation order.

Appellant petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in state court. The petition was denied. In re Kennick, 128 Cal.App.3d 959, 180 Cal.Rptr. 731 (1982). The California Supreme Court denied appellant's petition for a hearing.

Having thus exhausted his state court remedies, appellant sought a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Central District of California under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254. The district court denied the request for a writ, and appellant now appeals.

II

Appellant raises two issues on appeal. First, he contends that because his term of probation has already been either judicially terminated or fully served, he is being deprived of his liberty unlawfully in violation of the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. Second, appellant urges that the state court's decision that he must now serve his full term of probation after he has already served three years of probation violates the double jeopardy clause's prohibition against multiple punishments for the same offense. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the dismissal of appellant's petition.

A

Appellant bases his due process claim on two arguments. First, he argues that Judge Leetham's order remanding him to custody was unlawful because Judge Torres had previously terminated his probation and dismissed the case. Alternatively, appellant contends that even if Judge Torres did not lawfully terminate his probation, the stay issued on June 28, 1978, applied only to the jail condition of his probation and, consequently, by the time Judge Leetham issued his order, the three-year term of his probation had expired. Both of these arguments lack merit.

Appellant's first contention was rejected by the California Court of Appeal. In re Kennick, 128 Cal.App.3d 959, 180 Cal.Rptr. 731 (1982). That court found that under California law "where the execution of the judgment has been stayed pending appeal the trial court lacks jurisdiction during the pendency of the appeal to modify the judgment." Id. at 962, 180 Cal.Rptr. 731. The court concluded that since the appellant's probation was stayed pending appeal and since that appeal was not concluded until September 16, 1981, Judge Torres lacked authority to modify appellant's probation on June 8, 1981. Therefore, Judge Leetham was not acting unlawfully when he later remanded appellant to custody.

Appellant contends that the court of appeal misinterpreted California law. Absent arbitrary or discriminatory action, however, a mistake of state law does not constitute a due process violation; otherwise, "every erroneous decision by a state court on state law would come as a federal constitutional question." Engle v. Issac, 456 U.S. 107, 121 n. 21, 102 S.Ct. 1558, 1568 n. 21, 71 L.Ed.2d 783 (1982). See also Cooks v. Spalding, 660 F.2d 738 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1026, 102 S.Ct. 1729, 72 L.Ed.2d 147 (1982). Since there is no evidence of arbitrariness or discrimination in the instant case, any mistake of state law does not rise to the level of a due process violation.

The second prong of appellant's due process argument is based on the contention that the stay issued on June 28, 1978, and the subsequent posting of bail, affected only the jail condition of appellant's probation and that consequently the non-jail portion of appellant's term of probation was running during the pendency of this appeal. The California Court of Appeal, however, rejected this argument, finding that the stay and posting of bail stayed the entire probation order and that as a result, appellant's term of probation was not running during the pendency of his appeal. 128 Cal.App.3d at 964, 180 Cal.Rptr. 731.

Again, appellant asks this court to reject the conclusions of the state court of appeal. But 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 requires that this court accord the court of appeal's factual determinations a "presumption of correctness," unless one of a number of conditions is met. ² Sumner v. Mata, 449 U.S 539, 549, 101 S.Ct. 764, 770, 66 L.Ed.2d 722 (1981). The presumption of correctness afforded state court factual determinations can only be overcome "by convincing evidence." 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254(d).

Appellant has not claimed that any of the special conditions is present in the instant case. Nor does evidence of the presence of any of the conditions appear in the record. Thus, under section 2254(d), this court can reject the court of appeal's finding only if appellant provides "convincing evidence" that the finding was erroneous. He has not met that burden. The only evidence appellant refers us to is the transcript of the June 28, 1978 hearing at which the stay was issued. Although the excerpt does not clearly support the court of appeal's finding, it is certainly not "convincing evidence" that the court of appeal was mistaken. Thus, like the district court, we reject appellant's due process claim.

B

Appellant's double jeopardy argument has considerably more merit. ³ It is elementary that a second punishment for a single offense is constitutionally impermissible, ⁴ and the state does not question appellant's claim that he may not be punished twice for the same offense. The state contends, however, that probation does not constitute punishment for the purposes of the double jeopardy clause.

Every circuit which has considered this question, however, has held that probation is punishment within the meaning of the double jeopardy clause--at least where the question is whether the probationer can be required to reserve probation time already served rather than whether after revocation of probation for some infringement the probationer can be sentenced to imprisonment without credit for the time served on probation. See, e.g., United States v. Bynoe, 562 F.2d 126, 128 (1st Cir.1977); United States v. Teresi, 484 F.2d 894, 899 (7th Cir.1973); Oksanen v. United States, 362 F.2d 74, 80 (8th Cir.1966); United States v. Rosentreich, 204 F.2d 321 (2d Cir.1953). We agree.

These holdings comport with the relevant Supreme Court precedent. Although the Supreme Court has never considered this precise issue, it has consistently held that the double jeopardy clause must be construed broadly. In Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519, 95 S.Ct. 1779, 44 L.Ed.2d 346 (1975), the Court stated that "[a]lthough the constitutional language, 'jeopardy of life or limb,' suggests proceedings in which only the most serious penalties can be imposed, the Clause has long been construed to mean something far broader than its literal language." Id. at 528, 95 S.Ct. at 1785. In support of this contention, the Court cited a line of authority dating back to Ex parte Lange, 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 163, 21 L.Ed. 872 (1874). In that case, the Court stated, "It is not necessary in this case to insist that other cases besides those involving life or limb are positively covered by the language of this amendment." Id. at 170 (emphasis in original). The Court went on to cite approvingly a commentator who argued that "no man shall more than once be placed in peril of legal penalties upon the same accusation." Id. at 173 (emphasis added).

In light of this tradition of broad construction, we must conclude that probation constitutes punishment for double jeopardy purposes. Unquestionably, a probation order imposes "legal penalties," albeit mild ones. The order to which appellant is subject requires that he not associate with any person not approved by his probation officer, that he seek and maintain training, schooling, or employment approved by his probation officer, and that he obey all orders, rules, and regulations...