Harris

Harris v. Terhune

Good Law
92 F. App'x 462
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 25, 2004No. 03-15940; D.C. No. CV-99-00817-MCECalifornia1,432 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

California state prisoner Greg Lanier Harris appeals the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which challenged his 1996 jury trial conviction for sexual abuse of a minor and related counts. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2258, and we affirm.

We review the district court’s decision to deny Harris’ § 2254 petition de novo. Nulph v. Cook, 333 F.3d 1052, 1056 (9th Cir.2003). We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error. Id. Because Harris filed, his federal habeas petition after the effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996), the AEDPA controls and limits our review of matters adjudicated on the merits in the California state courts. See Killian v. Poole, 282 F.3d 1204, 1207 (9th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1179 , 123 S.Ct. 992 , 154 L.Ed.2d 927 (2003).

Under the AEDPA, federal courts must deny habeas relief unless the state court ruling “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court…

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.