From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Taylor v. Hamlet

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Mar 29, 2010
372 F. App'x 749 (9th Cir. 2010)

Opinion

No. 08-15042.

Submitted March 16, 2010.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed March 29, 2010.

Frank Bell, Esq., Law Office of Frank Bell, Redwood City, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Glenn R. Pruden, Esq., Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Maxine M. Chesney, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-03-00592-MMC.

Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

California state prisoner Alonzo L. Taylor appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Taylor contends that the district court erred when it determined that he entered his guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily. Any error that may have occurred in failing to notify Taylor of the mandatory restitution fine did not have a "substantial and injurious effect or influence" on the outcome of the case. See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Taylor v. Hamlet

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Mar 29, 2010
372 F. App'x 749 (9th Cir. 2010)
Case details for

Taylor v. Hamlet

Case Details

Full title:Alonzo L. TAYLOR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jim HAMLET, Respondent-Appellee

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Mar 29, 2010

Citations

372 F. App'x 749 (9th Cir. 2010)