Hughes

Hughes v. Harrison

Good Law
129 F. App'x 340
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 9, 2005No. 04-15637California525 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

1. Petitioner Michael Lynn Hughes (Hughes) is not entitled to habeas relief for his claim that the California court erred in finding his prior Illinois convictions to be equivalent to serious felonies for purposes of California’s Three Strikes Law. “Federal habeas corpus relief is generally unavailable for alleged error in the interpretation or application of state law.” Hubbart v. Knapp, 379 F.3d 773, 779 (9th Cir.2004) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 913 , 160 L.Ed.2d 807 (2005). “Absent a showing of fundamental unfairness, a state court’s misapplication of its own sentencing laws does not justify federal habeas relief.” Christian v. Rhode, 41 F.3d 461, 469 (9th Cir.1994) (citations omitted). There was no showing of fundamental unfairness in the California court’s interpretation or application of the Three Strikes Law in this case.

2. Hughes is likewise not entitled to habeas relief on his claim that the California court failed to apply a beyond a reasonable doubt standard in determining the fact of his prior convictions. The governing authority is Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147…

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.