Martin

Martin v. Thomas

Good Law
130 F. App'x 121
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 21, 2005No. 04-16090; D.C. No. CV-98-02151-EHC/JRICalifornia671 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Petitioner Larry Martin (“Martin”) brought some 118 habeas claims to the district court. With one exception, we find no apparent merit to those claims and affirm the denial of habeas relief. The lone exception is Martin’s ineffective assistance of counsel (“IAC”) claim, arising out of representations made to him by his trial defense counsel concerning the state’s plea offer and his sentencing exposure. Because we determine that Martin presents a colorable claim with respect to this issue, we remand it, and it alone, to the district court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Martin can demonstrate prejudice.

Martin’s claims were not defaulted in state court. Under Castillo v. McFadden, 399 F.3d 993, 998 (9th Cir.2005), we look to petitioner’s briefing in the state court of last merits review to determine whether the claim has been “fairly pre *123 sented” to the state courts. Among the claims set forth in his filings in the Arizona Court of Appeals, clearly present is Martin’s IAC claim regarding the representations of counsel concerning his sentencing exposure.

To understand Martin’s claim, it is necessary to unwind a factual mistake that began with…

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.