Belvins

Belvins v. Fillon

Good Law
68 F. App'x 112
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 20, 2003No. 00-55967California423 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner James O’Neil Belvins appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus, challenging his 25-years-to-life sentence imposed following his conviction for sale or transportation of marijuana, possession for sale of marijuana, possession of a firearm by a felon, and possession of a concealed firearm in a vehicle by a convicted person. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We affirm.

*113 Belvins first alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to request accomplice jury instructions tailored to the out-of-court statements of a witness. We disagree.

The district court correctly determined that even if the trial court would have given a cautionary accomplice instruction had his counsel requested it, Belvins did not establish that but for his trial counsel’s failure to request the instruction there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) (requiring that a petitioner demonstrate his counsel was ineffective by establishing that his counsel’s…

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.