Marshall

MEMORANDUM *

Michael William Marshall appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. Marshall contends that his state post-conviction relief (“PCR”) counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel to him in a proceeding equivalent to a direct appeal under Arizona law. According to Marshall, his counsel’s filing of a brief that stated that he found no grounds for relief and his failure to advise Marshall that he could file a pro se brief deprived Marshall of his right to appellate review. We have jurisdiction over Marshall’s timely appeal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253 1 , and we reverse.

We review the district court’s denial of a § 2254 habeas petition de novo, but will overturn the district court’s factual findings only if they are clearly erroneous. Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1019 (9th Cir.2001). Because the Arizona courts never reached the merits of Marshall’s ineffectiveness claim, “there is no state court decision on this issue to which to accord deference.” Pirtle v. Morgan, 313 F.3d 1160, 1167 (9th Cir.2002).

We reverse the district court’s denial of Marshall’s habeas petition, because Marshall’s Fourteenth…