Dominick Cacoperdo v. Peter Demosthenes the Attorney General of the State of Nevada

Caution
37 F.3d 504·94 Daily Journal DAR 13976·1994 WL 533577·1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 27636·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7609
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 4, 199493-15794California2,653 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wallace, J.

Cacoperdo was convicted in Nevada state court of ten counts of sexually assaulting his three teenaged stepdaughters. After unsuccessfully pursuing - a direct appeal and state habeas corpus relief, Cacoperdo filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. He now appeals from the district court’s order denying his petition. The district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 .

To merit federal habeas relief, Cacoperdo must demonstrate that his imprisonment is “in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (a); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1232 (9th Cir.) (Bashor), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 838 , 105 S.Ct. 137 , 83 L.Ed.2d 77 (1984). We review the district court’s denial of Cacoperdo’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus de novo. Adams v. Peterson, 968 F.2d 835, 843 (9th Cir.1992) (en banc), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 113 S.Ct. 1818 , 123 L.Ed.2d 448 (1993). We hold that Cacoperdo failed to make the required showing and therefore affirm.

I

Cacoperdo argues that the state trial court violated his due process rights by mechanically…

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.