Pliler

Smith v. Pliler

Good Law
280 F. Supp. 2d 990·2003 WL 22077757·2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24379
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaAugust 28, 2003C 01-4185 VRWCalifornia2,981 words

Opinion

Opinion

Walker, J.

ORDER.

Petitioner Keith Lamont Smith seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 USC § 2254 . Smith claims that “the trial court erroneously allowed the jury to consider as evidence of guilt numerous unsworn hearsay statements allegedly made by the [murder] victim.” Doc. #1 at 3. Smith also contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney “failed to object to hearsay statements * * * that were introduced against petitioner in violation of his right to confrontation under the federal constitution.” Id. For the reasons set forth below, Smith’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. # 1) is DENIED.

I

On April 29, 1996, a jury found Smith guilty of murdering Michael Hadden, a violation of California Penal Code § 187. Doc. # 15, Exh. C at 3089-90. The jury also found that during the murder, Smith was armed with a handgun, acted as one of the principals in the offense and knew that one of the other principals was also armed. Id. at 3090. Finally, the jury found that “during the commission and attempted commission of the above offense, [Smith] committed the above offense for the benefit of, at the direction of and in association with a criminal…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.