Manciano

Manciano v. Budge

Good Law
191 F. App'x 577
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 26, 2006No. 05-15878California678 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Nevada State prisoner William Scott Manciano appeals from the district court’s denial of his § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his conviction for first degree arson, three counts of attempted murder, and one count of maiming or disfiguring another person’s animal. We affirm.

Manciano exhausted his state appeals and state habeas remedies. Manciano contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to inform him about a plea offer tendered by the state prosecutor and failing to make other cited objections. Manciano also contends that the district judge erred in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing with respect to his ineffectiveness of counsel claim.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We review de novo the denial of a § 2254 petition, see Karis v. Calderon, 283 F.3d 1117, 1126 (9th Cir.2002). A district court’s decision to deny an evidentiary hearing in a habeas proceeding is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See id.

A federal habeas court may grant relief if the relevant state court decision was either: (1) contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as…

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.