Marcus Cole Carpenter v. James A. Yates

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
EOH/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARCUS COLE CARPENTER,
Petitioner -- Appellant,
v.
JAMES A. YATES,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 07-56214
D.C. No. CV-07-00135-ABC
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Audrey B. Collins, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Marcus Cole Carpenter appeals from the district
court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
JAN 08 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

EOH/Research 07-56214 2
Carpenter contends that at trial, the court improperly admitted statements
that the robbery victim had made to responding paramedics and police officers, in
violation of his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
The state court’s determination that the victim’s statements to paramedics
were admissible was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly
established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). The record reflects that the
purpose of the paramedics’ questions was to address the victim’s ongoing medical
emergency, rather than to assist law enforcement, and that the questioning took
place in a chaotic environment that lacked any “level of formality.” Davis v.
Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 827 (2006).
Further, it was not an unreasonable determination of the facts for the state
court to hold that police legitimately believed that there was an ongoing emergency
at the time they questioned the victim. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(2). The record
reflects that until the officers confirmed that there were no other victims, the
primary purpose of the questioning was to enable the police to meet an ongoing
emergency. See Davis, 547 U.S. at 822.
Additionally, the state court’s determination that the victim’s statements to
police officers were admissible was not an unreasonable application of clearly
established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). In light of the circumstances

-- 2 of 3 --

EOH/Research 07-56214 3
and the ongoing emergency, the statements were not testimonial. See Davis, 547
U.S. at 822.
Finally, we agree with the district court that even if Ramirez’s statements
were erroneously admitted, the error did not have a “substantial and injurious
effect or influence in determining” the court’s judgment. Brecht v. Abrahamson,
507 U.S. 619, 637–38 (1993). As the state court explained, a substantial amount of
other evidence supported Carpenter’s conviction.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --