Carlos Esquivel v. Al Ramirez

Good Law
605 F. App'x 661
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 22, 201513-35859California636 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Carlos Esquivel, a state prisoner, appeals from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. He contends that the district court erred when it concluded that Esquiv-el could not show prejudice stemming from his counsel’s failure to tell Esquivel that he had a right not to participate in a psycho-sexual evaluation (“PSE”) prior to sentencing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.

Esquivel’s petition is governed by the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . To be eligible for habeas relief, Esquivel must show that the Idaho courts’ adjudication of his claim “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” or “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” Id. § 2254(d).

Esquivel argues that the Idaho Court of Appeals unreasonably applied Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), to determine that he had not suffered…

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.