Pierre Joshlin v. Dwight Neven
This text of Pierre Joshlin v. Dwight Neven (Pierre Joshlin v. Dwight Neven) 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.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 28 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PIERRE DONTE’ JOSHLIN, No. 16-16669
Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01014-JAD-NJK v.
DWIGHT NEVEN, Warden; and MEMORANDUM* ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF NEVADA,
Respondents-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted August 16, 2018 San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER, SILER,** and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner-Appellant Pierre Joshlin appeals from the district court’s order
denying his petition for habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We affirm.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. In light of the prosecution’s improper comments, the only material dispute in
this appeal is whether the Nevada Supreme Court erred in its application of the
harmless error standard. See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637 (1993).
We have independently reviewed the record in this case. Although the state
court may have failed to recognize that the burden was on the state to establish a
lack of prejudice resulting from constitutional error, given the weight of the
evidence presented against Joshlin, there was no “‘reasonable possibility’ that the
error was harmful.” Davis v. Ayala, 135 S. Ct. 2187, 2198 (2015) (quoting Brecht,
507 U.S. at 637). The jury heard testimony describing the physical and
circumstantial evidence linking Joshlin to the shooting. The police presented
testimony of their pursuit of Joshlin from the stolen vehicle to the dumpster in
which he was found, during which they maintained nearly constant visual
surveillance. Joshlin was found in that dumpster with a Glock pistol matching ten
of the bullet casings at the scene of the shooting. The gloves found with Joshlin in
the dumpster contained gunshot residue.
The evidence against Joshlin was substantially stronger than that against his
co-defendant, Jemar Matthews. As the court in Matthews recognized, “[u]nlike
Joshlin, who was found in a dumpster with a handgun linked to the shooting, there
2 was no evidence directly linking Matthews to either the shooting or the robbery.”
Matthews v. Neven, 250 F. Supp. 3d 751, 765 (D. Nev. 2017).
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Pierre Joshlin v. Dwight Neven, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pierre-joshlin-v-dwight-neven-ca9-2018.