Craven v. Robertson

Background

Kalvin N. Craven filed a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging convictions from Alameda County Superior Court for multiple counts of second-degree robbery with firearm-use enhancements. The court had previously denied the claims in Craven’s original petition and Second Amended Petition and entered judgment.

Craven later sought relief from that judgment under Rules 59(e) and 60(b), arguing that the court had failed to address his specific Claim 2 argument: that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated by a private communication between the trial court and the deliberating jury. On March 31, 2025, the court granted reconsideration only as to the denial of Claim 2, reopened the case, and ordered a response to the remaining Sixth Amendment issue. The Ninth Circuit had dismissed Craven’s notice of appeal for lack of jurisdiction while the district-court proceedings remained ongoing.

The Jury Communication

During deliberations, the jury requested a readback of testimony concerning a gun. Defense counsel had stipulated that the readback could occur without counsel present. After the court told the jury that the readback would begin, Juror 12 asked what would happen if the jury had reached a decision on the charges but was unable to agree on a firearm enhancement. The judge told the jurors to write down their questions so the court could address them with the attorneys and instructed them to remain available after the readback. The jury did not submit a further written request, continued deliberating, and returned verdicts shortly afterward.

The California Court of Appeal had found no improper communication outside defense counsel’s presence and alternatively found any technical error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. In the federal proceeding, Craven argued that the communication and the trial court’s failure to notify counsel violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that federal habeas relief generally is unavailable unless the state court’s merits decision was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established United States Supreme Court law, or was based on an unreasonable factual determination.

The court distinguished between the readback, for which counsel had agreed to be absent, and Juror 12’s spontaneous question, for which counsel had not clearly waived presence. It nevertheless held that Craven had not shown a constitutional violation. The court found no Supreme Court precedent establishing that a juror’s question—even one asked outside counsel’s presence—is necessarily a “critical stage” requiring counsel’s presence. It also found no Supreme Court decision holding that a judge violates the Sixth Amendment by directing jurors to submit a question in writing so that the judge can discuss it with counsel before responding.

The court further held that, even assuming a constitutional error, Craven had not shown the required prejudice. The record did not show that the jury deadlocked on the firearm enhancements or that the communication influenced the verdict. The state appellate court reasonably found any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and Craven did not show that any presumed error had a substantial and injurious effect on the verdict.

Disposition

The court DENIED habeas relief for the remaining Sixth Amendment claim. It also DENIED Craven’s application for a certificate of appealability and motion for leave to proceed without paying court fees on appeal. The clerk was ordered to close the file.

Judge

The order was signed by Susan Illston, United States District Judge.