Kenneth Hibbler v. James Benedetti

MEMORANDUM

The Nevada Supreme Court did not make an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence before the state court, or unreasonably apply clearly established Supreme Court precedent, when it rejected Kenneth Patrick Hib-bler’s claims that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel due to counsel’s: (1) misadvising him about the availability of an insanity or diminished capacity defense, and (2) failing to present Hibbler’s request to withdraw his guilty plea. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d).

First, the state court reasonably determined that Hibbler’s allegation that counsel told him that no insanity defense existed in Nevada was incredible in light of the record, which conclusively showed that counsel was actively pursuing a potential insanity defense prior to the plea. This finding was not rendered unreasonable by the state court’s failure to hold an evidentiary hearing because the state court reasonably concluded that Hibbler’s allegations were belied by the record. See United States v. Hibbler, — F.3d - (9th Cir.2012); Perez v. Rosario, 459 F.3d 943, 950 (9th Cir.2006). Moreover, the state court did not unreasonably apply…