Terhune

Miller v. Terhune

Good Law
49 F. App'x 148
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 21, 2002No. 01-16740; D.C. No. CV-98-05220-OWWCalifornia930 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Randy Lee Miller appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Miller was convicted in California state court of stealing a car and evading police and was sentenced under the Three Strikes statute. He claims that he was denied due process because his trial judge had been his public defender on a predicate matter twenty years earlier, and he claims ineffective assistance of counsel due to his attorney’s failure to have the judge recused. Because Miller failed to demonstrate that the state courts’ application of federal law or interpretation of the facts before them was unreasonable, and because Miller failed to show that his counsel lacked reasonable professional judgment and that his counsel’s inaction prejudiced him, we affirm the district court’s denial of Miller’s habeas petition.

Our consideration of Miller’s habeas petition is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), enacted by Congress on April 24, 1996. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 326 , 117 S.Ct. 2059 , 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997). Under AEDPA, a federal court may grant a habeas petition for a claim heard by the state court on its merits only if…

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.