Seneca

Seneca v. Stewart

Good Law
79 F. App'x 978
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 31, 2003No. 03-15109; D.C. No. CV-00-01515-SRB/VAMCalifornia777 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

*980 MEMORANDUM **

Kristofer Michael Seneca, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his pro se habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . In that petition, Seneca challenges his conviction for attempted child molestation both on double jeopardy grounds and on grounds that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo a district court’s denial of a habeas petition, Koerner v. Giros, 328 F.3d 1039, 1045-46 (9th Cir. 2003), and we affirm.

In arguing double jeopardy, Seneca contends that his attempted child molestation conviction is barred because he previously had been acquitted of solicitation charges involving the same allegations of sexual misconduct. The Arizona Court of Appeals rejected this claim on direct appeal. The state court correctly recognized Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932) as the controlling federal law. Under Block burger, “[a] single act may be an offense against two statutes; and if each statute requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not, an acquittal or conviction under either statute does not…

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.