Michael Wilson v. Frank Chavez
Michael David WILSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frank X. CHAVEZ and Attorney General for the State of California, Respondents-Appellees
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Harry Pregerson (author), John T. Noonan, Jr., Kim M. Wardlaw
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 23 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL DAVID WILSON, No. 12-55744 Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00599-IEG- BLM v. FRANK X. CHAVEZ and ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM* GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Irma E. Gonzalez, Senior District Judge, Presiding Argued December 10, 2014 Submitted March 17, 2015 Pasadena, California Before: PREGERSON, NOONAN, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Michael David Wilson appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition, in which he claimed he received an additional three years and four months’ imprisonment due to his public defender’s ineffective assistance. We * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo a district court’s denial of a habeas petition, Stanley v. Cullen, 633 F.3d 852, 859 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.
Wilson alleged the prosecutor made him a plea offer of six years, which he instructed his attorney to accept immediately, but the offer expired before she did so. We conclude the California Court of Appeal’s application of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law because Wilson failed to establish sufficient prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697. Nor was the state court’s decision an “unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented” because Wilson contradicted himself on the record, and failed to provide reasonably available supporting evidence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2); Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770, 785-87 (2011). Lastly, Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388, 1398 (2011), bars federal courts from granting an evidentiary hearing where, as here, a claim was adjudicated on the merits in state court.
AFFIRMED.