United States Ninth Circuit

District court's denial of defendant's request for a habeas relief from his capital murder conviction is affirmed where: 1) there is no clearly established federal law requiring the defendant to consent on the record to an insanity defense; 2) the state post-conviction relief (PCR) court reasonably concluded defendant's appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to challenge the multiple-victim aggravating factor; 3) the state PCR court reasonably concluded that appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to challenge the prosecutor's closing statements because there was no prosecutorial misconduct that could have been challenged successfully under federal or state law; 4) the district court properly denied the request for evidentiary hearings and expansion of the record on the three claims that were certified for appeal since the state courts adjudicated each of those claims on the merits; and 5) defendant's request for a certificate of appealability on an uncertified claim that the state violated his due process rights by failing to collect biological evidence at the time of his arrest to show that he was intoxicated is denied, because he has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

Appellate Information

• Decided 09/18/2012
• Published 09/18/2012

Judges

• Schroeder

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel