From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Valle v. Hedgpeth

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Mar 8, 2012
471 F. App'x 650 (9th Cir. 2012)

Opinion

No. 10-16031 D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01467-FCD

03-08-2012

PABLO CHINA VALLE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ANTHONY HEDGPETH, Warden, SVSP; and MATTHEW CATE, Respondents - Appellees.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION


MEMORANDUM

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


Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Frank C. Damrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Pablo China Valle appeals from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Valle's counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have conducted an independent review of each of the issues for which the district court granted a certificate of appealability, and we conclude that there are no arguable grounds for habeas relief.

The California Court of Appeal's determination that the trial court committed harmless error by leaving out the "distinctively worse" element of the "planning and sophistication" aggravating factor jury instruction was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the United States Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).

The California Court of Appeal's determination that Valle's upper-term and consecutive sentences did not violate his Sixth Amendment rights was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the United States Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160, 163-64 (2009); Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 301 (2004).

Finally, because there is no reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different had Valle's counsel challenged the upper-term or consecutive sentences, the state court's denial of Valle's ineffective assistance of counsel claim was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the United States Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984).

Valle's counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Valle v. Hedgpeth

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Mar 8, 2012
471 F. App'x 650 (9th Cir. 2012)
Case details for

Valle v. Hedgpeth

Case Details

Full title:PABLO CHINA VALLE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ANTHONY HEDGPETH, Warden…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Mar 8, 2012

Citations

471 F. App'x 650 (9th Cir. 2012)

Citing Cases

Graves v. McEwen

This court has taken an inconsistent approach to the issue, entirely through memorandum dispositions. After…