Sean Reynolds v. Steven Cambra, Jr., Warden Attorney Gen. of the State of California, 290 F.3d 1029 (9th Cir. 2002). · Go Syfert
Search
Sean Reynolds v. Steven Cambra, Jr., Warden Attorney Gen. of the State of California, 290 F.3d 1029 (9th Cir. 2002). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Nutt v. Knowles (ca9, 2005-08-18)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nutt v. Knowles
9th Cir. · 2005 · confidence medium
This argument, however, is foreclosed by Reynolds v. Cambra, 290 F.3d 1029, 1030 (9th Cir.2002), in which we held that Apprendi does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review, and by Schardt v. Payne, 414 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 2005), in which we recently held that Blakely does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review.
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Plasencia-Garcia
9th Cir. · 2002 · confidence medium
Reynolds v. Cambra, 290 F.3d 1029, 1030 (9th Cir.2002); Rees v. Hill, 286 F.3d 1103, 1104 (9th Cir.2002); United States v. Sanchez-Cervantes, 282 F.3d 664, 673 (9th Cir.2002).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Sean REYNOLDS, Petitioner-Appellee,
v.
Steven CAMBRA, Jr., Warden; Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents-Appellants
01-55643.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
May 14, 2002.
290 F.3d 1029
2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4124
2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 9125
2002 WL 979796
Margaret E. Maxwell, Deputy Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for appellant Steven Cambra, Jr., Patricia G. Bell, West Hills, CA, for appellee Sean Reynolds.
Fernandez, Rawlinson, Reed.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

[*1030] OPINION

RAWLINSON, Circuit Judge:

Appellant Steven Cambra appeals the district court’s partial grant of Sean Reynolds’ habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Without the benefit of our recent decision in United States v. Sanchez-Cervantes, 282 F.3d 664 (9th Cir.2002), the district court ruled, in a published opinion, that Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), should apply retroactively to Reynolds’ petition.

However, after the district court’s decision was entered, Reynolds’ claim was completely foreclosed by our decision in Sanchez-Cervantes, where we held that Apprendi does not apply retroactively. Sanchez-Cervantes at 668-71; see also Rees v. Hill, 286 F.3d 1103, 2002 WL 453222 (9th Cir. Mar.26, 2002).

In light of our ruling that Apprendi does not apply retroactively, we need not address Reynolds’ prejudice arguments or any other asserted errors.

Each party will bear its costs on appeal.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.