Juan Manuel Rojas v. RICHARD J. KIRKLAND, Warden

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The Honorable John R. Tunheim, District Judge for the District of**
Minnesota, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN MANUEL ROJAS,
Petitioner - Appellee,
v.
RICHARD J. KIRKLAND, Warden,
Respondent - Appellant.
No. 11-55270
D.C. No. 2:06-cv-05469-DDP-JWJ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 13, 2012
Pasadena, California
Before: SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and TUNHEIM,
District Judge.**
A State of California warden appeals the district court’s grant of Juan M.
Rojas’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus. A jury convicted
FILED
APR 19 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

Rojas of attempted murder and two counts of carjacking, and found that he had
used a handgun in the commission of the crimes. Rojas was sentenced to life
imprisonment plus an additional 22 years and 4 months. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We reverse.
The State argues that a reasonable basis existed for the California Supreme
Court’s denial of Rojas’s Confrontation Clause claim—that under Crawford v.
Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), and Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006),
Jacob Ochoa’s statements identifying Rojas were nontestimonial. We agree.
Ochoa called 911 to report that Rojas had just attempted to shoot him in the face,
stole his car, and remained near the scene of the crime. Because reasonable jurists
could find that the purpose of the statements was to resolve an ongoing emergency,
and that, therefore, their admission did not violate the Confrontation Clause,
habeas relief is precluded under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
of 1996. See Michigan v. Bryant, 131 S. Ct. 1143, 1166–67 (2011) (holding that
the admission of a victim’s statement to police did not violate the Confrontation
Clause where its primary purpose was to enable police to meet an ongoing
emergency); Davis, 547 U.S. at 822.
REVERSED.

-- 2 of 2 --