Stevenson v. Lewis, No. 03-55784.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtSilverman
Citation384 F.3d 1069
Docket NumberNo. 03-55784.
Decision Date22 September 2004
PartiesAmos Dwayne STEVENSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gail LEWIS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
384 F.3d 1069
Amos Dwayne STEVENSON, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Gail LEWIS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 03-55784.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted September 15, 2004.*
Filed September 22, 2004.

Page 1070

Steven S. Lubliner, Law Offices of Steven S. Lubliner, Petaluma, CA, for petitioner-appellant.

Rhonda L. Cartwright-Ladendorf, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, State of California, San Diego, CA, for respondent-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; Nora M. Manella, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-01-00756-NMM.

Before: THOMPSON, SILVERMAN, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

SILVERMAN, Circuit Judge.


Habeas petitioner Amos Dwayne Stevenson claims that he was tried in Orange County for a crime he committed in Los Angeles County in violation of the vicinage clause of the Sixth Amendment. The United States Supreme Court has yet to decide whether the vicinage clause applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Consequently, the California Court of Appeal's decision that petitioner was properly tried in Orange County is not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, we affirm on this ground the district court's denial of Stevenson's habeas petition.

Facts and Procedural History

Stevenson was prosecuted for robbery, rape, kidnaping, and false imprisonment, in connection with four separate incidents. Three of these incidents took place entirely within Orange County, California, and the venue for the trial of these crimes is not disputed. The question in this case concerns the proper venue for the prosecution of the fourth incident, which occurred on November 20, 1992. On that date, Stevenson confronted Deborah W. with a gun outside her apartment in Long Beach, in Los Angeles County. After taking Deborah's money, Stevenson had her drive him to a bank. When Deborah could not find her ATM card, Stevenson ordered her to continue driving and eventually raped her. He took her rings and purse before fleeing. At the time of the crimes, Stevenson was stationed at the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station in Orange County. Stevenson's barracks was located less than 100 yards from a dumpster in which Deborah's purse was found the morning after she was victimized.

Stevenson was tried on all charges in Orange County Superior Court. A jury convicted Stevenson of kidnaping, robbery, rape, and false imprisonment in connection with all four incidents. The jury also found "true" the special allegation that Stevenson personally used a firearm during the commission of the crimes. Stevenson was sentenced to six consecutive life terms, plus a determinate term of 122 years.

On direct appeal, Stevenson argued that his rights under the Sixth Amendment's vicinage clause were violated when he was tried by an Orange County jury for the crimes involving Deborah. The California Court of Appeal applied the vicinage clause but rejected Stevenson's claim because the charges in question had a sufficient nexus to Orange County to permit trial by an Orange County jury. On federal habeas review, the district court also rejected this claim, but on a different ground; it concluded that the Sixth

Page 1071

Amendment's vicinage clause does not apply to the states. Stevenson now appeals.

Standards of Review

We review de novo a district court's decision to deny federal habeas relief. See Clark v. Murphy, 331 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir.2003). The provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 apply because Stevenson filed his petition after AEDPA's effective date. See id.

We may not grant federal habeas relief unless we conclude that the state court's adjudication of a petitioner's claim "resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). If there is no Supreme Court precedent that controls a legal issue raised by a petitioner in state court, the state court's decision cannot be contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly-established federal law. See Brewer v. Hall, 378 F.3d 952, 955 (9th Cir.2004).

Discussion

Stevenson argues that the state...

To continue reading

Request your trial
124 practice notes
  • Ray v. Kernan, No. C 06-4556 SBA (pr).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • January 22, 2009
    ...decision cannot be contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly-established federal law. See, e.g., Stevenson v. Lewis, 384 F.3d 1069, 1071 (9th The fact Supreme Court law sets forth a fact-intensive inquiry to determine whether constitutional rights were violated "obviates neith......
  • Shukry v. Neotti, No. 2:09-cv-00669-JKS
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • December 15, 2011
    ...correct absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary . . . ." (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1))). 21. See Stevenson v. Lewis, 384 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2004) ("Stevenson does not address these factual findings, let alone challenge them with clear and convincing evidence. According......
  • Kaddoura v. Cate, No. 2:11-cv-01208-JKS
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • July 3, 2012
    ...correct absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary . . . ." (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1))). 21. See Stevenson v. Lewis, 384 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2004) ("Stevenson does not address these factual findings, let alone challenge them with clear and convincing evidence. According......
  • Nuh Nhuoc Loi v. Scribner, Civil No. 08cv1619-BTM (PCL).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • December 2, 2009
    ...vicinage right applies to the States through incorporation into the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Stevenson v. Lewis, 384 F.3d 1069, 1071-72 (9th Cir.2004). The California Constitution contains an independent, common law vicinage right in Article I, section 16, which has been c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
124 cases
  • Ray v. Kernan, No. C 06-4556 SBA (pr).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • January 22, 2009
    ...decision cannot be contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly-established federal law. See, e.g., Stevenson v. Lewis, 384 F.3d 1069, 1071 (9th The fact Supreme Court law sets forth a fact-intensive inquiry to determine whether constitutional rights were violated "obviates neith......
  • Shukry v. Neotti, No. 2:09-cv-00669-JKS
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • December 15, 2011
    ...correct absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary . . . ." (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1))). 21. See Stevenson v. Lewis, 384 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2004) ("Stevenson does not address these factual findings, let alone challenge them with clear and convincing evidence. According......
  • Kaddoura v. Cate, No. 2:11-cv-01208-JKS
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • July 3, 2012
    ...correct absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary . . . ." (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1))). 21. See Stevenson v. Lewis, 384 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2004) ("Stevenson does not address these factual findings, let alone challenge them with clear and convincing evidence. According......
  • Nuh Nhuoc Loi v. Scribner, Civil No. 08cv1619-BTM (PCL).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • December 2, 2009
    ...vicinage right applies to the States through incorporation into the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Stevenson v. Lewis, 384 F.3d 1069, 1071-72 (9th Cir.2004). The California Constitution contains an independent, common law vicinage right in Article I, section 16, which has been c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT