William Bell v. Rob Persson

Good Law
610 F. App'x 619
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 21, 201514-35536California841 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Appellant William Bell, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant pled guilty to four counts of unlawful use of a firearm and one count of a felon in possession of a firearm in exchange for the government dismissing three counts of attempted murder. Appellant alleges that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary, due to his trial counsel’s ineffective assistance in failing to investigate his case. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

We review the district court’s denial of a habeas petition de novo. See Smith v. Swarthout, 742 F.3d 885, 892 (9th Cir.2014). Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), habe-as relief can only be granted if the state court proceeding which adjudicated the claim on the merits “(1) 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 (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented…

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.