Bamber v. Paramo

Background

Robert Roy Bamber sought federal habeas relief from the denial of his request for resentencing under California Penal Code section 1170.126, part of California’s Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012. In 1995, a Sonoma County Superior Court jury convicted him of receiving stolen property, possessing a needle and syringe, auto theft, and resisting an officer. The jury also found that he had four prior felony convictions and six prior prison terms. The state court imposed a sentence of 25 years to life under California’s Three Strikes Law.

Bamber later petitioned the Sonoma County Superior Court to revise his sentence under section 1170.126. That court denied the request after finding that resentencing would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. Bamber’s efforts in the state courts to overturn that ruling were unsuccessful.

Claims and exhaustion

Bamber’s federal petition included an Eighth Amendment challenge to his sentence and allegations that the original sentencing court had misunderstood the law. That Eighth Amendment claim was dismissed during screening because it attacked the original sentence rather than the constitutionality of the later resentencing proceedings. The remaining allegations were construed as a due-process challenge to the denial of resentencing.

The respondent argued that Bamber had not exhausted the due-process claim, meaning that he had not fairly presented that federal constitutional claim to California’s highest court. The court agreed that Bamber’s petition for review did not explicitly present a due-process claim. The court nevertheless explained that federal law permits a court to deny an unexhausted habeas claim on the merits. It therefore reviewed the claim without requiring further exhaustion.

Court’s reasoning

The court held that Bamber’s claim was not cognizable in federal habeas review because it challenged the state court’s application of California sentencing law. Section 1170.126 permits certain prisoners serving Three Strikes life sentences to seek resentencing as second-strike offenders, unless resentencing would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. The federal court concluded that alleged errors in applying that state statute do not establish a violation of federal law or the Constitution. This remained true even if California courts had interpreted or applied the statute incorrectly.

Disposition

The court DENIED the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It stated that a certificate of appealability would not issue because reasonable jurists would not find the court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. The court said Bamber may seek a certificate of appealability from the Ninth Circuit, directed the clerk to enter judgment in favor of the respondent, and ordered the file closed.