Peter Michael Bergne v. William A. Duncan, Warden Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General of the State of California

60 F.3d 832 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Peter Michael BERGNE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William A. DUNCAN, Warden; Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents-Appellees. No. 94-56690. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted June 26, 1995. * Decided July 3, 1995. Before: O'SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Peter Michael Bergne, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the denial of his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction, following a jury trial, for second degree murder. Bergne contends that (1) the trial court violated his right to compulsory process, (2) the prosecution failed to disclose exculpatory evidence, and (3) his attorney provided ineffective assistance. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2253 , and we affirm in part and vacate in part. 3 First, Bergne contends that he was denied the right to compulsory process because the…