From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Watson v. Fairman

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
May 18, 2004
97 F. App'x 177 (9th Cir. 2004)

Opinion

Submitted May 14, 2004.

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; Consuelo B. Marshall, Chief District Judge, Presiding.

Garry Phillip Watson, Ione, CA, pro se.

Wayne R. Young, Santa Monica, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Chung L. Mar, Kerry Keach Winters, AGCA--Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.


Before BROWNING, RYMER, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Gary Phillip Watson appeals the district court's denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We issued a certificate of appealability on one issue, whether Watson's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was violated when he admitted prior felony convictions at sentencing. This case is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), and we conclude that the California Court of Appeal's decision was neither contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the United States Supreme Court.

Even if clearly established federal law did require advice of the consequences of admitting priors, cf. United States v. Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780, 782-84, 99 S.Ct. 2085, 60 L.Ed.2d 634 (1979), the California Court of Appeal reasonably found that there was no likelihood that Watson's sentence would have been any different. The prosecution was ready to prove the priors, and Watson has never disputed their validity. See Lowell v. Prunty, 91 F.3d 1358, 1359 (9th Cir.1996) (per curiam).

We decline to consider Watson's remaining claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, lack of due process and impeded access to the courts as they are beyond the scope of the certified issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Watson v. Fairman

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
May 18, 2004
97 F. App'x 177 (9th Cir. 2004)
Case details for

Watson v. Fairman

Case Details

Full title:Garry Phillip WATSON, Petitioner--Appellant, v. J.W. FAIRMAN, Warden…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: May 18, 2004

Citations

97 F. App'x 177 (9th Cir. 2004)

Citing Cases

Larue v. Matteson

Petitioner does not dispute the validity of his prior convictions or that the prosecution would have been…