Terrell Oden v. Mike Knowles

430 F. App'x 594
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedApril 29, 2011
Docket08-55484
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 430 F. App'x 594 (Terrell Oden v. Mike Knowles) 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
Terrell Oden v. Mike Knowles, 430 F. App'x 594 (9th Cir. 2011).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Terrell C. Oden, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his jury conviction of first degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder. Oden contends he was charged with a gun use enhancement, the penalty for which is ten years, but was convicted of and sentenced for a gun discharge enhancement carrying a twenty-five-years-to-life penalty for which he did not receive *596 notice. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm. 1

The Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the charges made against him so as to permit adequate preparation of a defense. See In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 273, 68 S.Ct. 499, 92 L.Ed. 682 (1948); Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196, 201, 68 S.Ct. 514, 92 L.Ed. 644 (1948). In this case, the amended information’s recitation of the overt acts with respect to Count II as well as the jury instructions from the first trial gave Oden sufficient notice of the greater “gun discharge” enhancement pursuant to California Penal Code § 12022.53(d).

Nothing in Cole, 333 U.S. 196, 68 S.Ct. 514, or De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 57 S.Ct. 255, 81 L.Ed. 278 (1937), the Supreme Court cases relied upon by Oden, clearly limits the constitutionally-required notice to the four corners of the charging document. The California Court of Appeal’s decision, therefore, was not “contrary to” or “an unreasonable application of’ clearly established Federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Carey v. Musladin, 549 U.S. 70, 77, 127 S.Ct. 649, 166 L.Ed.2d 482 (2006).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

1

. Because die parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history, we do not restate them here except as necessary to explain our disposition.

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

Related

Oden v. Knowles
181 L. Ed. 2d 203 (Supreme Court, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
430 F. App'x 594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/terrell-oden-v-mike-knowles-ca9-2011.