Capanear

Capanear v. Stewart

Good Law
55 F. App'x 449
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 21, 2003No. 02-15254; D.C. No. CV-99-00012-WDBCalifornia299 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Nicholas Capanear appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Capanear challenges his Arizona conviction and 25-years to life sentence for unlawful imprisonment, aggravated assault, first-degree burglary, and first-degree murder. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . Reviewing de novo, Bailey v. Newland, 263 F.3d 1022, 1028 (9th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 995 , 122 S.Ct. 1556 , 152 L.Ed.2d 479 (2002), we affirm.

Capanear contends that his trial counsel was ineffective by inadequately moving to suppress statements that he made to the police. We are not persuaded. Because trial counsel successfully suppressed some of the statements, and nothing in the record indicates deficient performance, Capanear cannot establish that his counsel provided ineffective assistance. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Capanear also contends that his appellate counsel was ineffective by failing to successfully argue that admission of his statements was error, and that the error was not harmless. Here too, we are not persuaded. Although counsel’s argument was unsuccessful,…

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.