Edward Ray, Jr. v. Jeffrey Beard

Ninth Circuit

Edward Ray, Jr. v. Jeffrey Beard

654 F. App'x 865

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 6, 2016

Docket14-15607

StatusUnpublished

This text of 654 F. App'x 865 (Edward Ray, Jr. v. Jeffrey Beard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Edward Ray, Jr. v. Jeffrey Beard, 654 F. App'x 865 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Edward Vincent Ray, Jr. appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28' U.S.C. § 2254. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a), and we affirm.

Ray contends that the admission of his codefendant’s confession violated the Confrontation Clause because the confession did not redact all references to Ray. We review the district court’s denial of habeas relief de novo. Murdaugh v. Ryan, 724 F.3d 1104, 1113 (9th Cir. 2013).

As a preliminary matter, we agree with Ray that his Confrontation Clause claim is exhausted. Ray does not offer any evidence beyond that contained in the state court record, and his arguments before the state courts set forth the operative facts . necessary to establish the legal basis of his claim. See Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254, 260, 106 S.Ct. 617, 88 L.Ed.2d 598 (1986); Davis v. Silva, 511 F.3d 1005, 1009-11 (9th Cir. 2008).

We also agree- that the California Court of Appeal’s factual finding underlying the rejection of the Confrontation Clause claim was unreasonable, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2), and that the admission of the improperly redacted confession constituted an error pursuant to Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968). Contrary to the California Court of Appeal’s finding, the confession contained two direct references to Ray and at least one reference was incriminating. See Bruton, 391 U.S. at 130-37, 88 S.Ct. 1620; Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F.3d 992, 1001 (9th Cir. 2004) (applying section 2254(d)(2)).

Nevertheless, we affirm the district court’s denial of relief because the Bruton error was harmless in light of the strength of the prosecution’s case. See Whelchel v. Washington, 232 F.3d 1197, 1206 (9th Cir. 2000). Not only was the confession’s brief reference to Ray cumulative of Larry Car-rington’s more incriminating testimony, but the prosecution also introduced Ray’s self-incriminating statements, witness testimony connecting Ray directly to eight *867 robberies, and circumstantial evidence, including surveillance video, connecting Ray to the other robberies. See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637-38, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993).

We decline to expand the certificate of appealability.

AFFIRMED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM ***

Edward Vincent Ray, Jr. appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28' U.S.C. § 2254. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a), and we affirm.

Ray contends that the admission of his codefendant’s confession violated the Confrontation Clause because the confession did not redact all references to Ray. We review the district court’s denial of habeas relief de novo. Murdaugh v. Ryan, 724 F.3d 1104, 1113 (9th Cir. 2013).

As a preliminary matter, we agree with Ray that his Confrontation Clause claim is exhausted. Ray does not offer any evidence beyond that contained in the state court record, and his arguments before the state courts set forth the operative facts . necessary to establish the legal basis of his claim. See Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254, 260, 106 S.Ct. 617, 88 L.Ed.2d 598 (1986); Davis v. Silva, 511 F.3d 1005, 1009-11 (9th Cir. 2008).

We also agree- that the California Court of Appeal’s factual finding underlying the rejection of the Confrontation Clause claim was unreasonable, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2), and that the admission of the improperly redacted confession constituted an error pursuant to Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968). Contrary to the California Court of Appeal’s finding, the confession contained two direct references to Ray and at least one reference was incriminating. See Bruton, 391 U.S. at 130-37, 88 S.Ct. 1620; Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F.3d 992, 1001 (9th Cir. 2004) (applying section 2254(d)(2)).

Nevertheless, we affirm the district court’s denial of relief because the Bruton error was harmless in light of the strength of the prosecution’s case. See Whelchel v. Washington, 232 F.3d 1197, 1206 (9th Cir. 2000). Not only was the confession’s brief reference to Ray cumulative of Larry Car-rington’s more incriminating testimony, but the prosecution also introduced Ray’s self-incriminating statements, witness testimony connecting Ray directly to eight *867 robberies, and circumstantial evidence, including surveillance video, connecting Ray to the other robberies. See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637-38, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993).

We decline to expand the certificate of appealability.

AFFIRMED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

654 F. App'x 865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edward-ray-jr-v-jeffrey-beard-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack