Enriquez

Enriquez v. Pliler

Good Law
141 F. App'x 573
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 27, 2005No. 03-56669California1,199 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Habeas petitioner Marcos Anthony Enriquez complains that he was denied the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel at his trial for three counts of attempted murder and assault with a firearm. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, habeas corpus relief on a claim adjudicated by a state court on the merits will be denied unless the decision was (1) “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States[,]” or (2) “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 691-94 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) sets forth the standard for a claim of ineffective assistance: a habeas petitioner must demonstrate that his representation (1) fell “below an objective standard of reasonableness,” and (2) that counsel’s mistakes were “prejudicial to the defense,” that is, such mistakes as create a “reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional…

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.