Abimael Najera v. Matthew Cate, Sec'y Calif. Dept. Of Corrections

Good Law
454 F. App'x 563
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 17, 201109-55241California576 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Abimael Najera (“Najera”) was convicted of second degree murder in a California state court for killing Victor Hernandez (“Hernandez”). He appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus. Certified for appeal is a single issue: “whether trial counsel was ineffective under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) for failing to object to the prosecutor’s multiple misstatements of the law of voluntary manslaughter.” Najera contends that he was prejudiced by his counsel’s failure to object to the misstatements, that this prejudice denied him a fair trial, and that the California Court of Appeal’s method of determining prejudice was contrary to Strickland’s standard for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel claims under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). We do not find his arguments persuasive.

Under AEDPA, Najera’s petition may only be granted if the state court’s adjudication of his claim (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of Strickland ; or “(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable…

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.