From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Picazo v. Alameida

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
May 5, 2004
366 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 2004)

Summary

denying petition for rehearing and upholding panel's earlier decision that petitioner had suffered Brecht prejudice and granting petition, without considering whether the state court's harmless error decision was objectively unreasonable

Summary of this case from Tidwell v. Calderon

Opinion

No. 03-55497.

May 5, 2004.

D.C. No. CV-02-04551-VAP (RZ).

Leonard Chaitin, Esq., Pasadena, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Stephanie A. Miyoshi, DAG, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: BROWNING, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.


ORDER

In its petition for rehearing, the State of California argues for the first time that Mitchell v. Esparza, ___ U.S. ___, 124 S.Ct. 7, 157 L.Ed.2d 263 (2003), requires the application of a new standard of review in habeas cases involving state court findings of harmless error. In our memorandum disposition in this case, we applied the standard of review initially established for such cases by Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993), and later made applicable to AEDPA cases, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254, in Bains v. Cambra, 204 F.3d 964, 977 (9th Cir. 2000). Given that Esparza did not even mention Brecht, or its progeny, see O'Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432, 115 S.Ct. 992, 130 L.Ed.2d 947 (1995), we do not believe that the Court intended to overrule those earlier decisions. But we need not rest our decision on that ground alone, because at no point in this litigation until the petition for rehearing did the state argue that we should apply Esparza, or even consider it. The Esparza opinion was issued months before oral argument in this case, yet the state did not cite Esparza in any written submission to this court. When asked at oral argument to identify the applicable standard of review, the state insisted that Brecht controlled and again failed to mention Esparza. Under the law of this circuit, we deem the state's most recent argument waived. See Talk of the Town v. Department of Finance and Business Services, 353 F.3d 650 (9th Cir. 2003) (refusing to consider an issue raised for the first time in a petition for rehearing); see also Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that arguments that are not raised in the briefs are waived).

The petition for rehearing is DENIED.


Summaries of

Picazo v. Alameida

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
May 5, 2004
366 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 2004)

denying petition for rehearing and upholding panel's earlier decision that petitioner had suffered Brecht prejudice and granting petition, without considering whether the state court's harmless error decision was objectively unreasonable

Summary of this case from Tidwell v. Calderon

rejecting a petition for rehearing that argued that the Brecht standard was inapplicable post- Esparza because "[g]iven that Esparza did not even mention Brecht, or its progeny, we do not believe that the Court intended to overrule those earlier decisions"

Summary of this case from Inthavong v. Lamarque

refusing to consider argument on petition for rehearing where issue had been raised "at no point in th[e] litigation"

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Ortuno-Higareda
Case details for

Picazo v. Alameida

Case Details

Full title:Donny PICAZO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Edward J. ALAMEIDA, Director…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: May 5, 2004

Citations

366 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 2004)

Citing Cases

U.S. v. Ortuno-Higareda

As the majority properly states, we normally do not consider contentions that went unmentioned during the…

Tidwell v. Calderon

We have not since Mitchell clarified the relationship between 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and Brecht review of harmless…