Tony Saffold v. Anthony Newland

MEMORANDUM

Saffold appeals from the district court’s decision denying his federal petition for writ of habeas corpus. We review a district court’s denial of a habeas corpus petition de novo. Gonzalez v. Brown, 585 F.3d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir.2009). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

There has been extensive litigation about whether Saffold’s state and federal habeas petitions were timely filed. See Saffold v. Carey, 312 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir.2002). The district court denied Saffold’s petition on the merits. The timeliness issue is complex, and we need not decide it because assuming without deciding that Saffold did not procedurally default and that his claims were timely in all respects, he still cannot prevail.

Saffold claims that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in two ways. First, he contends that trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to obtain timely adjudication of his motion to exclude identification evidence, which motion Saffold argues was meritorious. Saffold also contends that trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to impeach sufficiently the government’s key identification ■witness. The Superior Court of…