Binford

Binford v. Lambert

Good Law
32 F. App'x 971
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 16, 2002No. 01-35347; D.C. No. CV-00-05271-FDBCalifornia323 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Robert L. Binford appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, challenging his jury trial conviction and life sentence for first degree robbery, three counts of first degree assault, taking a motor vehicle without permission, and attempting to elude a pursuing police vehicle. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo a district court’s denial of a habeas petition for failure to exhaust, Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 828 (9th Cir.1996), and affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

Binford argues that the district court erred by finding that he had not exhausted state remedies with respect to claims 3, 4, 8, 12, 13, 15, and 16 of his federal habeas petition. We find error only in the district court’s conclusion with respect to claim 4.

Claim 4 alleges in part that the state violated Binford’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by commenting in closing argument on his failure to testify at trial. We conclude that Binford has properly exhausted this part 1 of the claim *972 by “fairly presenting” its “substance” to the Washington Supreme Court in claim 5 of his 1998 Petition for Review. See…

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.