Garcia

Garcia v. Runnels

Good Law
143 F. App'x 38
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 1, 2005No. 04-16562; D.C. No. CV-02-05480-CRBCalifornia768 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

The district court granted Mitchell Garcia’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus *39 and vacated his sentence. The state of California appeals. It asserts that the district court violated AEDPA’s deferential review standards when it set aside the state court’s factual findings as an unreasonable determination of fact under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(2), held an evidentiary hearing to find the facts anew without adhering to the “presumption of correctness” under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (e)(1), and issued an order granting the writ in light of the evidence presented during the evidentiary hearing it conducted. Because the district court adhered strictly to the procedures set forth in our decision in Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F.3d 992 (9th Cir.2004), we affirm.

This appeal revolves around a single factual finding by the state court: the California Court of Appeal’s determination that Garcia rejected a 13 year plea offer not because of “any miscalculation of the maximum term of prison exposure,” but rather because “it was the unacceptable length of the prison term contained in the offer that was itself unacceptable.” As a result of this fact-finding, the state court dismissed Garcia’s…

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.