Blackford v. Oregon Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

MEMORANDUM

William C. Blackford appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Our review is de novo, Babb v. Lozowsky, 719 F.3d 1019, 1025-26 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 134 S.Ct. 526 , 187 L.Ed.2d 379 (2013), and 28 U.S.C. § 2253 confers our jurisdiction.

1. As an initial matter, there is no procedural bar to our consideration of Black-ford’s ineffectiveness claim in its entirety. At all stages of state postconviction review, Blackford alleged that his trial counsel had been constitutionally ineffective for failing to inform him of the “consequences” of his guilty plea. Before the Oregon Court of Appeals in particular, Blackford’s brief referred to several of the release conditions, explaining that trial counsel “did not tell [Blackford] that he would have to give up hunting, give up alcohol, and have no contact with minors.” Blackford’s ineffectiveness claim, therefore, was “fairly presented to the state courts.” Gulbrandson v. Ryan, 738 F.3d 976, 992 (9th Cir.2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2. Blackford cannot show that the Oregon state court’s decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly…