Diggs

Diggs v. Pliler

Good Law
289 F. App'x 152
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 8, 2008No. 07-15755California1,065 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner-Appellant Joseph Diggs, currently serving a sentence of 25 years to life, seeks relief via Federal habeas from his California state law convictions for conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, attempted murder, and assault with a firearm. The district court denied Diggs’s petition; we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and affirm.

We review the district court’s denial of Diggs’s habeas petition de novo. See Arnold v. Runnels, 421 F.3d 859, 862 (9th Cir.2005). Diggs’s habeas petition was filed on July 16,1999, and is thus governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”). Under AEDPA, habeas relief can be granted only if the state court’s denial of relief was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law as determined by the Supreme Court, or was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d); Carey v. Musladin, 549 U.S. 70 , 127 S.Ct. 649, 652-54 , 166 L.Ed.2d 482 (2006). “Mistakes in reasoning,” or “use of the wrong legal rule or framework” constitute error under § 2254(d)(1). See Frantz v. Hazey, 533 F.3d 724, 734 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). If faced with…

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.