Joseph Charles Cannan v. SANDRA HUTCHENS, Sheriff-Coroner, Orange County

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSEPH CHARLES CANNAN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
SANDRA HUTCHENS, Sheriff-Coroner,
Orange County; EDMUND G. BROWN,
Jr., Attorney General State of CA,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 11-56274
D.C. No. 8:09-cv-01264-GAF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Gary A. Feess, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Joseph Charles Cannan appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
JUL 03 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-56274 2
Cannan alleges that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated when the trial
court determined his prior Arizona conviction for manslaughter qualified to elevate
his current offenses to felonies and double his sentence under California’s Three
Strikes Law. Cannan is not entitled to habeas relief as the California Court of
Appeals decision to deny relief was not contrary to or an unreasonable application
of Supreme Court precedent. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Apprendi v. New Jersey,
530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000).
We construe Cannan’s argument that the trial court relied on improper
hearsay to enhance his sentence as a motion to expand the certificate of
appealability (“COA”). So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-
1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam). To
the extent Cannan seeks to appeal the district court’s denial of a COA with regard
to this issue, the denial of a COA is not in itself appealable. See Greenawalt v.
Stewart, 105 F.3d 1268, 1272 (9th Cir. 1997) (per curiam), abrogation on other
grounds recognized by Jackson v. Roe, 425 F.3d 654, 658-61 (9th Cir. 2005).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --