Wilkins
Wilkins v. Scribner
Opinion
lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Timothy D. Wilkins appeals the district court’s dismissal of his habeas corpus petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . He argues that he was 1) denied effective assistance of counsel, and 2) compelled to appear at trial in prison garb in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. We affirm.
We review the district court’s denial of habeas corpus de novo. Sandgathe v. Maass, 314 F.3d 371, 376 (9th Cir.2002). Under the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, we reverse where the last reasoned state court decision was based on an objectively unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent or determination of the facts. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(l)-(2); see Carey v. Musladin, 549 U.S. 70 , 127 S.Ct. 649, 653 , 166 L.Ed.2d 482 (2006) (stating that clearly established Federal law refers to the holdings, not the dicta of Supreme Court opinions); Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F.3d 992, 999-1000 (9th Cir.2004). Where clearly established Supreme Court law exists, we grant the writ only when “firmly convinced” the state court committed clear error. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 389 , 120 S.Ct. 1495 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000).