Patsalis v. Shinn
| Decision Date | 06 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | 20-16800 |
| Parties | Atdom Mikels Patsalis, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David Shinn, Director; Attorney General for the State of Arizona, Respondents-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Argued and Submitted August 9, 2021 San Francisco, California
Appeal from the United States District Court No. 3:18-cv-08101-JAT for the District of Arizona James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
Jordan Green (argued) and Karl Worsham, Perkins Coie LLP, Phoenix Arizona; Mark Kokanovich and Ian Bucon, Ballard Spahr LLP Phoenix, Arizona; Lindsay Herf, Arizona Justice Project Phoenix, Arizona; for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Jillian B. Francis (argued), Assistant Attorney General; J.D. Nielsen, Habeas Unit Chief; Mark Brnovich, Attorney General; Office of the Attorney General, Phoenix, Arizona; for Respondents-Appellees.
Before: Eugene E. Siler, [*] Morgan Christen, and Danielle J. Forrest, Circuit Judges.
The panel affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief to Atdom Patsalis, who argued that his 292-year total sentence by an Arizona state court is grossly disproportionate to his crimes and therefore cruel and unusual in violation of the Federal and Arizona Constitutions.
Patsalis was convicted of 25 felonies (mostly residential burglaries) committed against multiple victims over a three-month period. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences on all but two of the 25 counts, resulting in an overall sentence of 292 years imprisonment.
Rejecting Patsalis's constitutional claim, the Arizona Court of Appeals concluded that proportionality should be assessed based on each individual conviction and sentence, not the cumulative effect of consecutive sentences, and that none of Patsalis's individual sentences were disproportionate.
Patsalis argued that the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's (AEDPA's) deferential standard of review does not apply to the Arizona Court of Appeals' decision because that court did not consider the cumulative impact of his sentence, and that he was entitled instead to de novo review on this claim. The panel concluded that the Arizona Court of Appeals made a merits determination, and that AEDPA deference applies. The panel explained that while the Arizona Court of Appeals declined to analyze proportionality based on Patsalis's cumulative sentence, it did decide his Eighth Amendment claim on substantive grounds: it heard and evaluated the evidence and the parties' substantive arguments, rejected Patsalis's framing of the issue as a cumulative analysis, and concluded that Patsalis's individual sentences were not grossly disproportionate under the state and federal authorities that it discussed. Citing Johnson v. Williams, 568 U.S. 289 (2013), the panel wrote that this court must presume that the Arizona Court of Appeals' conclusion that "Patsalis's individual sentences are not grossly disproportionate as defined under the authorities discussed" was a merits determination under both Arizona and federal law. The panel wrote that there is no reason to think that the Arizona court overlooked or failed to resolve Patsalis's claim that his cumulative sentence was unconstitutional.
Applying AEDPA deference, the panel noted that there is no clearly established law from the Supreme Court on whether Eighth Amendment sentence proportionality must be analyzed on a cumulative or individual basis when a defendant is sentenced on multiple offenses, and that other than the basic principle of proportionality, the only thing that the Supreme Court has established is that the rule against grossly disproportionate sentences is violated only in the exceedingly rare and extreme case. The panel wrote that Patsalis's cumulative sentence is undeniably harsh, and the trial court would have been reasonable in imposing a shorter sentence, but the Supreme Court has emphatically instructed that it is not enough that a federal habeas court is left with a firm conviction that the state court was erroneous. The panel wrote that to grant relief, it must conclude that there is no possibility fairminded jurists could disagree that the Arizona Court of Appeals' decision conflicts with the Supreme Court's clearly established precedents. The panel explained that it cannot do that given the limited Supreme Court precedent regarding the prohibition against disproportionality of a sentence to a term of years, and concluded that it therefore cannot say that the Arizona Court of Appeals' decision was contrary to, or unreasonably applied, "clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
Because the state court did not reach the merits of the claim Patsalis actually presented, there is no state-court decision to which this court can defer, and de novo review is the proper standard. Reviewing Patsalis's claim de novo, Judge Christen concluded that Patsalis's cumulative sentence is grossly disproportionate to the offenses he committed, and violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
OPINION
Petitioner-Appellant Atdom Patsalis seeks federal habeas relief, arguing that his 292-year total sentence imposed by an Arizona state court is grossly disproportionate to his crimes and, therefore, cruel and unusual in violation of the Federal and Arizona Constitutions. Patsalis was convicted of 25 felonies (mostly residential burglaries) committed against multiple victims over a three-month period. These were not his first crimes. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences on all but two of the 25 counts, resulting in an overall sentence of 292 years imprisonment.
The Arizona Court of Appeals rejected Patsalis's constitutional claim concluding that proportionality should be assessed based on each individual conviction and sentence, not the cumulative effect of consecutive sentences, and that none of Patsalis's individual sentences were disproportionate. Patsalis sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He argued that the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's (AEDPA) deferential standard of review does not apply to the Arizona Court of Appeals' decision because that court did not consider the cumulative impact of his sentence. Instead, he argued that he was entitled to de novo review on this claim. The district court disagreed, afforded AEDPA deference to the Arizona court, and concluded that Patsalis is not entitled to relief. We affirm.
When he was 21 years old, Patsalis committed 25 separate felonies in three months, mostly in the same residential neighborhood. Law enforcement identified Patsalis as a suspect and obtained a search warrant for the home where he was staying. Patsalis fled when officers arrived to execute the warrant, but soon after he returned to the home and confessed to his crimes.
Patsalis was offered two alternative plea deals, and the trial judge explained the terms of the deals and that Patsalis faced up to 490 years' imprisonment if he went to trial. Patsalis rejected the plea offers and went to trial, and a jury convicted him on 12 counts of burglary in the second degree, 10 counts of burglary in the third degree, theft of a credit card, unlawful means of transportation, and attempted unlawful means of transportation. The jury also found two or more aggravating circumstances on all but two counts of conviction.
At sentencing, the trial judge found that Patsalis was a category three repetitive offender because he had two prior felony convictions that impacted his sentencing calculation. The trial judge also considered Patsalis's lack of empathy for his victims; that his victims included elderly, retired people; that his crimes were premeditated; that he was not under the influence during the commission of any of his crimes; and that his prior incarcerations had not deterred him from continuing to engage in criminal conduct. The trial judge rejected Patsalis's argument that the 25 offenses were part of one continuous spree because Patsalis committed them over three months, giving him "plenty of time to reflect upon [his] conduct and not to continue."
The trial judge trial ordered Patsalis to serve all but two of his 25 sentences consecutively, resulting in a cumulative 292-year prison sentence. The trial judge stated that consecutive sentences were required[1] and discussed the deterrent effect of imposing consecutive sentences, stating that he could not The trial judge declined to find that Patsalis's age or confession mitigated his conduct.
Patsalis appealed his sentence arguing, among other things, that the trial court violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment by sentencing him to a "total sentence of 292 years." State v Patsalis, No. 1 CA-CR 15-0409, 2016 WL 3101786, at *4- 5 (Ariz.Ct.App. June 2, 2016). Addressing this claim, the Arizona Court of Appeals cited Arizona's general rule against "consider[ing] the imposition of consecutive sentences in a proportionality inquiry[,]" and rejected Patsalis's federal and state constitutional claims challenging his consecutive sentences as grossly disproportionate to his crime. Id. at *5. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial