## Facts

- Kelvin Menjeryl (also spelled Merjeryl) Allen, a California state prisoner, sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after his Solano County convictions arising from shooting and seriously injuring his girlfriend, Mickey Kentra.
- The state charged Allen with attempted murder, assault with a firearm, corporal injury to a cohabitant, and mayhem, and alleged firearm-use and great-bodily-injury enhancements tied to domestic violence circumstances.
- Before trial, the prosecution moved to admit evidence of Allen’s prior acts of domestic violence against Kentra (and also referenced domestic violence involving an ex-wife). Allen moved in limine to exclude the evidence as unduly prejudicial, improper propensity/character evidence, and a violation of due process.
- The trial court admitted evidence of prior domestic-violence incidents involving Kentra and instructed the jury it could consider that evidence as showing a disposition to commit domestic violence, but could not convict Allen based solely on the prior incidents.
- The jury convicted Allen of assault with a firearm, corporal injury to a cohabitant, and mayhem; the court declared a mistrial on attempted murder because the jury could not reach a verdict.
- After retrial, Allen was convicted of attempted voluntary manslaughter.
- On direct appeal, the California Court of Appeal largely affirmed the judgment, with limited sentencing corrections under California law.
- Allen then filed a federal habeas petition challenging (1) the admission of prior domestic-violence evidence and (2) several sentencing-enhancement rulings, including claims framed as state-law error and as federal double-jeopardy and due-process violations.
- A magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations addressing whether the state courts’ decisions were contrary to, or unreasonable applications of, clearly established Supreme Court precedent as required by AEDPA.

## Issues

1. Whether admitting Allen’s prior domestic-violence acts as propensity evidence violated due process under clearly established Supreme Court law for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
2. Whether alleged misapplication of California sentencing rules to firearm-use and great-bodily-injury enhancements (including whether terms should have been stayed) stated a cognizable federal habeas claim.
3. Whether imposing a great-bodily-injury enhancement in connection with the mayhem count violated the Double Jeopardy Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment.
4. Whether imposing the upper term on the firearm-use and great-bodily-injury enhancements presented a federal constitutional violation rather than a state-law abuse-of-discretion claim.

## Decision

- The magistrate judge recommended that the district court deny Allen’s § 2254 petition in full.
- On the due-process challenge to admission of prior domestic-violence evidence, the court concluded that AEDPA barred relief because the Supreme Court has not clearly held that admission of propensity evidence violates due process, and the state court’s ruling was not an unreasonable application of general due-process principles.
- The court relied in part on the trial court’s limiting instruction that the jury could not convict solely because of the prior incidents, and found no showing that the evidentiary ruling rendered the trial fundamentally unfair.
- The court treated challenges to how California applied its sentencing statutes (including arguments about stays and state-law sentencing structure) as noncognizable on federal habeas review absent an independent federal constitutional violation.
- The double-jeopardy/due-process challenge to cumulative punishment based on enhancements failed because, where state law authorizes separate punishment for an offense and an enhancement, cumulative punishment imposed in a single proceeding does not violate double jeopardy; the state court’s conclusion was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court doctrine.
- The challenge to imposing upper terms on enhancements was rejected because it primarily alleged state-law sentencing error and did not show arbitrary or fundamentally unfair sentencing rising to a federal due-process violation.

## Legal Principles

- Federal habeas relief is available only for violations of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States; errors of state law, standing alone, do not support relief.
- Under AEDPA, a federal court may grant relief only if the last reasoned state-court decision was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court holdings, or rested on an unreasonable determination of facts.
- A state evidentiary ruling warrants habeas relief only if it made the trial fundamentally unfair; when the Supreme Court has not clearly ruled that a specific category of evidence violates due process, a state court’s admission of that evidence ordinarily will not satisfy § 2254(d)(1).
- Double jeopardy does not bar cumulative punishments imposed in a single trial when the legislature authorizes separate punishment for the substantive offense and a sentencing enhancement based on the same conduct.
- Disputes about a state court’s selection of upper terms or use of sentencing discretion generally do not present a federal question unless the result is so arbitrary or capricious that it violates due process.

## Conclusion

In *Allen v. Barnes*, the Eastern District of California (through Findings and Recommendations) concluded that Allen failed to show an AEDPA-qualifying federal constitutional error: Supreme Court precedent did not clearly forbid the domestic-violence propensity evidence admitted with limiting instructions, and Allen’s sentencing-enhancement challenges either raised only state-law questions or did not establish a double-jeopardy or due-process violation; accordingly, the petition was recommended for denial.


Allen v. Barnes, 2015 WL 1999820 (2015)