Owens

Owens v. Ayers

Good Law
27 F. App'x 797
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 13, 2001No. 00-17372; D.C. No. CV-99-02042-EJGCalifornia621 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Frederick Owens, appeals pro se from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus, challenging his convictions for assault with a deadly weapon by a state prisoner in violation of California Penal Code § 4501, and possession of a weapon by a state prisoner in violation of California Penal Code § 4502(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 & 2253(d) and we affirm.

Because the AEDPA applies, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d), in order to succeed, Owens must demonstrate that the state court adjudication of the merits of his claim “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 , 120 S.Ct. 1495, 1523 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000); Van Tran v. Lindsey, 212 F.3d 1143, 1153-54 (9th Cir. 2000) cert. denied 531 U.S. 944 , 121 S.Ct. 340 , 148 L.Ed.2d 274 (2000) (defining “unreasonable applications” as involving situations where the state court has committed clear error).

Owens contends that his conviction must be reversed because the trial court…

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.