Cornelis Moore v. William Duncan

Good Law
462 F. App'x 767
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 21, 201110-17646California618 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Cornelius Gerome Moore (“Moore”) appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his guilty plea in California state court to the crimes of burglary of an inhabited dwelling, robbery, assault with intent to commit the felony of oral copulation and taking a vehicle without the owner’s consent. Specifically, Moore challenges 1) the district court’s judgment that his guilty plea was voluntary and 2) the district court’s rejection of his claim that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to advise him concerning possible mental health defenses. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253 and we affirm.

As the facts and procedural history are familiar to the parties, we do not recite them here except as necessary to explain our disposition. We review de novo the district court’s denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Lopez v. Thompson, 202 F.3d 1110, 1116 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc). Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), which governs Moore’s petition, “[fjederal habeas relief may not be granted for claims subject to § 2254(d) unless it is shown that the earlier state court’s…

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.