David McDonough v. James Yates

Good Law
526 F. App'x 796
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 31, 201311-17578California385 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner David M. McDonough challenges his state court conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . He pled guilty to a total of seven counts of lewd conduct upon a minor and received an aggregate sentence of twenty-eight years. Though the plea agreement specified that only two of those counts occurred after a change in California presentencing credit law, the California courts applied the later law, entitling Mc-Donough to fewer credits, to the entirety of McDonough’s presentencing confinement. Compare Cal.Penal Code § 4019 (providing that prisoners are entitled to fifty-percent maximum presentencing credit), with CaLPenal Code § 2933.1 (reducing maximum presentencing credit to fifteen-percent for prisoners convicted of certain crimes, including lewd conduct upon a minor). The district court denied his petition. We affirm.

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, a habeas petitioner is entitled to relief if his state court conviction was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). In Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24 , 101…

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.