Charles Karnes v. Jeff Premo

Good Law
521 F. App'x 595
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 29, 201312-35163California699 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Charles James Karnes appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . The district court rejected Karnes’s claims for relief, but granted a certifícate of ap-pealability as to (1) whether Karnes is entitled to habeas relief on his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and (2) whether Karnes procedurally defaulted his claims that he was denied the right to counsel of his choice and the due process right to be present at a status conference where the trial court refused to delay his trial so that Karnes’s counsel of choice could represent him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and § 2253(a), and we affirm.

1. Karnes’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is governed by Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, we cannot grant habeas relief for claims adjudicated on the merits in state court unless the last reasoned state court decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” or…

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.