Sanders

MEMORANDUM *

Daniel Sanders appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253 and reverse and remand for issuance of the writ.

Following a two-day jury trial in Washington state court, Sanders was convicted of child molestation. He appealed his conviction, alleging that he was coerced into waiving his right to appeal, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct. The state appeals court denied his due process claim, finding that he had waived his right to appeal, and dismissed his other claims. The state supreme court denied his petition for review without comment. Sanders then filed a petition for federal habeas review, which included his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. That claim was ultimately found exhausted by this court, in Sanders v. Ryder, 342 F.3d 991 (9th Cir.2003), in which we remanded it to the district court for an evidentiary hearing on the merits. Id. at 1001 . After conducting the hearing, the district court concluded that Sanders did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel, and he now appeals the district court’s decision. At…

dissenting.

The district court conducted a 6-day evidentiary hearing in this case, after which the magistrate judge issued a detailed 27-page report and recommendation, which concluded that the Sanders’ petition should be denied. The district judge made an independent examination and issued his own 19-page order denying the petition. That order did not adopt all of the recommendations of the magistrate judge, but it did agree with and adopt the recommendation relevant to this appeal, rejecting petitioner’s claim based on alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. In particular, the district court concluded that Sanders had failed to establish either of the two prongs required under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). I agree with that assessment.

I respectfully dissent.