Thomas Wheelock v. Scott Kernan

Ninth Circuit

Thomas Wheelock v. Scott Kernan

571 F. App'x 559

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 24, 2014

Docket12-15690

StatusUnpublished

This text of 571 F. App'x 559 (Thomas Wheelock v. Scott Kernan) 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

Thomas Wheelock v. Scott Kernan, 571 F. App'x 559 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

This is a habeas appeal by a California prisoner, Thomas Wheelock, who was convicted of first degree murder for shooting one of the drivers of an armored car during a robbery. There are three certified issues.

The first relates to the dismissal of a juror during deliberations, after the State learned that the juror was being prosecuted for fraud by the same district attorney’s office, and defended by the same defender’s office, involved in this case. There was no unfairness or one-sidedness in allowing the dismissal of the juror, who was not in a position to function impartially. The state court’s holding to that effect violated no clearly established principle of federal law. This situation is unlike Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42, 112 S.Ct. 2348, 120 L.Ed.2d 33 (1992), relied upon by the Petitioner, where one party was given an advantage in the selection process.

The Petitioner also challenges the composition of the grand jury, claiming under-representation of Asian-Amerieans as grand jurors, and discrimination against Asian-Americans, Hispanics, and women in the selection of grand jury forepersons. The state court of appeal carefully examined the historical record and determined that there was no substantial underrepre-sentation, where most of the absolute disparities were below 10%. This was in accord with many federal court decisions, see, e.g., United States v. Rodriguez-Lara, 421 F.3d 932, 943-44 (9th Cir.2005), and hence violated no clearly established federal law.

The California Court of Appeal reasonably applied Supreme Court precedent when it held that the issuance of a California arrest warrant before commencement of extradition proceedings does not trigger the right to counsel. See United States v. Gouveia, 467 U.S. 180, 190, 104 S.Ct. 2292, 81 L.Ed.2d 146 (1984).

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 **

This is a habeas appeal by a California prisoner, Thomas Wheelock, who was convicted of first degree murder for shooting one of the drivers of an armored car during a robbery. There are three certified issues.

The first relates to the dismissal of a juror during deliberations, after the State learned that the juror was being prosecuted for fraud by the same district attorney’s office, and defended by the same defender’s office, involved in this case. There was no unfairness or one-sidedness in allowing the dismissal of the juror, who was not in a position to function impartially. The state court’s holding to that effect violated no clearly established principle of federal law. This situation is unlike Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42, 112 S.Ct. 2348, 120 L.Ed.2d 33 (1992), relied upon by the Petitioner, where one party was given an advantage in the selection process.

The Petitioner also challenges the composition of the grand jury, claiming under-representation of Asian-Amerieans as grand jurors, and discrimination against Asian-Americans, Hispanics, and women in the selection of grand jury forepersons. The state court of appeal carefully examined the historical record and determined that there was no substantial underrepre-sentation, where most of the absolute disparities were below 10%. This was in accord with many federal court decisions, see, e.g., United States v. Rodriguez-Lara, 421 F.3d 932, 943-44 (9th Cir.2005), and hence violated no clearly established federal law.

The California Court of Appeal reasonably applied Supreme Court precedent when it held that the issuance of a California arrest warrant before commencement of extradition proceedings does not trigger the right to counsel. See United States v. Gouveia, 467 U.S. 180, 190, 104 S.Ct. 2292, 81 L.Ed.2d 146 (1984).

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)

571 F. App'x 559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-wheelock-v-scott-kernan-ca9-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack