Opinion
No. 12-16541 D.C. No. 4:10-cv-04923-PJH
01-17-2014
MARK L. EDWARDS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. GARY SWARTHOUT, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted December 6, 2013
San Francisco, California
Before: TROTT and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and EZRA, District Judge.
The Honorable David A. Ezra, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, sitting by designation.
--------
California state prisoner Mark L. Edwards appeals from the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus and argues that the state court's decision affirming his conviction was "contrary to" federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). We affirm.
Edwards first asserts that the phrase "great bodily injury" as used in his sentence enhancement is unconstitutionally vague. Edwards's contention is without merit. As the California Court of Appeals properly found, the phrase "great bodily injury" has a well-settled, common-law meaning and is therefore not void for vagueness. See Panther v. Hames, 991 F.2d 576, 578 (9th Cir. 1993) ("When a term has a well-settled common law meaning, it will not violate due process 'notwithstanding an element of degree in the definition as to which estimates might differ.'" (quoting Connally v. Gen. Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926))); see also Butler v. O'Brien, 663 F.3d 514, 521 (1st Cir. 2011) (holding that the common usage of the phrase "serious bodily injury" afforded sufficient clarity to comport with due process).
Edwards next argues that the three-year sentencing enhancements he received for personally inflicting serious bodily injury constituted double jeopardy. We disagree. The California appellate court properly concluded that sentencing enhancements are not "multiple punishments" within the meaning of the double jeopardy prohibition. See Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721, 728 (1998); Witte v. United States, 515 U.S. 389, 397 (1995).