Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Joseph Stanley DURAN III, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Randy GROUNDS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
MEMORANDUM ***
Joseph Stanley Duran appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This court granted a certificate of appealability on whether Duran’s trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to alleged hearsay testimony. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review the district court’s judgment de novo, see Hurles v. Ryan, 752 F.3d 768, 777 (9th Cir. 2014), and we affirm.
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), Duran must demonstrate that the state court’s denial of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). To establish ineffective assistance of counsel a petitioner must show both that his counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance was prejudicial. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). We need not assess the alleged deficiencies of counsel’s performance, however, when it is clear that a petitioner cannot show the requisite prejudice. Id. at 697, 104 S.Ct. 2052; Williams v. Calderon, 52 F.3d 1465, 1470 n.3 (9th Cir. 1995).
Even assuming Duran’s trial counsel was deficient, the state court’s determination that there was no reasonable probability of a different outcome was not an unreasonable application of Strickland’s prejudice prong. In rejecting Duran’s claim that his counsel was ineffective when he failed to object to hearsay testimony, the state appellate court concluded that record evidence confirming Duran’s presence in the van during the shooting made it “inconceivable” that his trial counsel’s failure to object was prejudicial.
The state court’s conclusion was not an unreasonable application of Strickland. Counsel raised no objection when Maria Montano testified that right before shots were fired at her car, a bystander named Kevin Davis stated, “[t]here goes Joe [Duran] right there” as a van drove by. On cross-examination, however, Davis testified that he could not see anyone in the van. Two other witnesses, Tereaun and Tecora Berry, testified that Duran was in the van with them on the night of the shooting. Additionally, Sontoya Hawkins stated that someone called “Joe” was seated in the front seat of the van. In light of the evidence placing Duran in the van, the state court’s conclusion that prejudice was lacking was not an unreasonable application of Strickland.
AFFIRMED.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 15-16482
Decided: April 02, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)