Steven Anthony Guzman v. A. LAMARQUE, Warden

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEVEN ANTHONY GUZMAN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
A. LAMARQUE, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 09-16051
D.C. No. 2:04-cv-00700-FCD-
GGH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Frank C. Damrell, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 13, 2010
San Francisco, California
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, NOONAN and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Under California law, the possibility of parole does not transmute a life
sentence into something less than a life sentence. In re Dannenberg, 104 P.3d 783,
804 (Cal. 2005). The trial court correctly advised Guzman that the maximum
penalty he faced was life in prison. The misstatement of Guzman’s parole
FILED
MAY 13 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
eligibility did not violate law clearly established by the United States Supreme
Court. See Lambert v. Blodgett, 393 F.3d 943, 981 n.26 (9th Cir. 2004).
Nor did Guzman’s lawyer’s failure to object to the trial court’s advisements
and sentencing with respect to the thirty-one year minimum term violate his clearly
established rights. The Supreme Court has specifically declined to find that a
defendant has the right to be advised by his lawyer of the parole consequences of
his plea. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 60 (1985).
Finally, Guzman argues that the trial court lacked substantial evidence for its
finding that he was sane at the time that he killed his wife. Assuming that we can
review the trial court’s finding that Guzman did not carry his burden to show
insanity for sufficiency of the evidence under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307
(1979), we find that there was sufficient evidence for the finding. If Guzman went
back to the house thinking that his wife was not an imminent danger to him, it was,
according to Dr. Jaffe’s testimony, not possible that his delusion then caused him
to form the temporary belief that she was an immediate threat, only to realize
moments later that his act was wrong. The trial court was entitled to rely on Dr.
Jaffe’s medical opinion that if Guzman knew right from wrong immediately before
and after the killing, he also knew right from wrong at the time of the killing and
could be held culpable.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --