Ted Amparan v. M. Spearman ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    APR 22 2022
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    TED AMPARAN,                                     No.     20-55711
    Petitioner-Appellant,              D.C. No.
    3:18-cv-02522-BTM-WVG
    v.
    M. ELIOT SPEARMAN, Warden,                       MEMORANDUM*
    Respondent-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of California
    Barry Ted Moskowitz, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted April 6, 2022**
    Pasadena, California
    Before: SCHROEDER and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and McNAMEE,*** District
    Judge.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    ***
    The Honorable Stephen M. McNamee, United States District Judge
    for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
    Petitioner Ted Amparan appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for
    writ of habeas corpus under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
    . Reviewing de novo, Lopez v. Thompson, 
    202 F.3d 1110
    , 1116 (9th
    Cir. 2000) (en banc), we affirm.
    1. The state court of appeals permissibly found that Amparan was sentenced
    under subdivision (c) of California Penal Code Section 667.6. Though the
    sentencing court stated initially that it would sentence Amparan under subdivision
    (d) only, the court later stated it would “do it under both.” We must afford the
    state court deference on questions of fact, Lopez, 
    202 F.3d at 1116
    , and Amparan
    has not rebutted the presumption of correctness here. Additionally, the court of
    appeals’ finding was not unreasonable, and thus does not meet the requirements for
    relief under § 2254(d).
    2. Amparan’s consecutive sentences under subdivision (c) cannot be the
    basis for habeas relief. Under subdivision (c), consecutive sentences are
    discretionary, but to impose consecutive sentences, the court is required to provide
    a statement of reasons or, at minimum, recognize “that two sentence choices are
    involved.” People v. Senior, 
    5 Cal. Rptr. 2d 14
    , 24 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992). Here, the
    sentencing court did not provide a statement of reasons. But a “trial court’s alleged
    failure to list reasons for imposing consecutive sentences” cannot function as the
    2
    basis for federal habeas relief, Souch v. Schaivo, 
    289 F.3d 616
    , 623 (9th Cir.
    2002), because the decision to impose sentences “consecutively is a matter of state
    criminal procedure and is not within the purview of federal habeas corpus,”
    Cacoperdo v. Demosthenes, 
    37 F.3d 504
    , 507 (9th Cir. 1994) (denying habeas
    relief where the petitioner argued his due process rights were violated because the
    trial court imposed consecutive sentences without explanation).
    3. Amparan also asserts, for the first time on appeal, a Sixth Amendment
    violation. We decline to consider the issue. See Cacoperdo, 
    37 F.3d at 507
    (“Habeas claims that are not raised before the district court in the petition are not
    cognizable on appeal.”).
    AFFIRMED.
    3