Santos Arango-Ortiz v. Mark Nooth

MEMORANDUM

Santos Leonardo Arango-Ortiz seeks a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that he received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel that rendered his guilty plea involuntary. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59, 106 S.Ct. 366 , 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985). The district court denied the writ. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

The state post-conviction court rejected Arango-Ortiz’s claim because he was not a credible witness. Because an adverse credibility finding is dispositive of the Strickland claim, Arango-Ortiz may not be granted habeas relief unless he can overcome this finding through an “intrinsic” challenge under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(2) or an “extrinsic” challenge under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (e)(1). See Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F.3d 992, 999-1001 (9th Cir.2004). In his intrinsic challenge, Arango-Ortiz argues that the state court’s fact-finding procedure was defective, citing cases in which this court suggested that resolving a credibility contest without hearing live testimony was defective. Nunes v. Mueller, 350 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir.2003); Hibbler v. Benedetti 693…