Nathaniel James v. Robert G. Borg, Warden Attorney General of California

Good Law
24 F.3d 20·94 Daily Journal DAR 6362·1994 WL 178404·1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 10484·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3340
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 12, 199492-56543California4,116 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wiggins, J.

Opinion by Judge WIGGINS.

Nathaniel James is a state prisoner who petitions for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . He appeals from a district court’s order denying his petition and dismissing it with prejudice. Petitioner challenges his state murder conviction primarily on the ground that his Sixth Amendment right to be informed of the nature and cause of the charge was violated. Petitioner also asserts that his Sixth Amendment right to receive effective assistance of counsel at trial was denied and that his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was violated. He seeks a retrial. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

i.

On December 4, 1981, petitioner cruised the Beverly Hills area in a stolen van, drinking alcohol, using drugs and stealing women’s purses. The next day petitioner announced to his cohorts that he would show them “how to do a real robbery.” Petitioner approached a parked car in which Lev and Rima Pikas were sitting. Petitioner was wearing a short-sleeved shirt. Pointing a gun at Lev Pikas, petitioner demanded money. He then shot both Lev and Rima Pikas. Lev Pikas gave petitioner two blood-stained $20 bills.…

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.