Samuels

Samuels v. Newland

Good Law
116 F. App'x 803
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 22, 2004No. 03-15292California1,044 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Reginald Samuels was convicted in California state court for possession of stolen property. He was sentenced to a term of 27 years to life under California’s Three Strikes law. After exhausting his state remedies, Samuels filed this habeas petition. The district court denied the petition. Samuels appeals, arguing that he was denied a fair trial because he was prevented from meaningfully asserting his defense, and that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective.

The panel reviews the district court’s denial of Samuels’s habeas petition de novo. Solis v. Garcia, 219 F.3d 922, 926 (9th Cir.2000). The petition is governed *805 by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d) (“AEDPA”). The last reasoned decision by the state courts in this case is the California Court of Appeal’s decision on direct review. Therefore, the panel is to determine whether the Court of Appeal’s decision was either “contrary to” or an “unreasonable application” of clearly established Supreme Court law. Kennedy v. Lockyer, 379 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir.2004).

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that every defendant has a “fundamental…

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.