From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Terhune

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 18, 2003
72 F. App'x 697 (9th Cir. 2003)

Opinion


72 Fed.Appx. 697 (9th Cir. 2003) Johnny Lee WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. C.A. TERHUNE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. No. 02-17179. D.C. No. CV-00-20040-RMW. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. August 18, 2003

Submitted August 11, 2003.

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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)

Prisoner brought habeas corpus petition challenging his convictions and sentence for burglary, car theft, kidnapping, robbery, attempted robbery, false imprisonment, and assault with a firearm. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Ronald M. Whyte, J., denied petition. Prisoner appealed. The Court of Appeals held that denial of prisoner's request for new counsel during trial did not violate his Sixth Amendment rights.

Affirmed.

Page 698.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Ronald M. Whyte, District Judge, Presiding.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and TASHIMA, 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.

California state prisoner Johnny Lee Williams appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition, which challenges his convictions and life sentence for burglary, car theft, kidnaping, robbery, attempted robbery, false imprisonment, and assault with a firearm. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a). Reviewing de novo, Alvarado v. Hill, 252 F.3d 1066, 1068 (9th Cir.2001), we affirm.

Williams contends that his Sixth Amendment right to conflict-free counsel was violated because the trial court denied his request for new counsel after his court-appointed attorney disclosed that he had accepted future employment with the prosecutor's office and made a comment indicating that Williams's case was a "financial burden." The California Court of Appeal rejected this claim, reasoning that counsel's future employment did not create an actual conflict and that, when read in context, counsel's comment regarding the financial burden indicated only his commitment to Williams's case. Moreover, the court concluded that counsel's performance at trial indicated that he was not affected by any conflict of interest.

We cannot say that the California court's conclusions were contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law as clearly established by the Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 348-50, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980) (indicating that a habeas petitioner who objected to a potential conflict at trial may obtain relief only by showing (1) that the trial court failed to conduct an adequate inquiry; or (2) that counsel "actively represented conflicting interests"); see also Garcia v. Bunnell, 33 F.3d 1193, 1199 (9th Cir.1994) (stating that defense counsel's acceptance of a job offer from the prosecutor's office did not create an actual conflict of interest). Thus, the district court properly denied Williams's petition.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Williams v. Terhune

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 18, 2003
72 F. App'x 697 (9th Cir. 2003)
Case details for

Williams v. Terhune

Case Details

Full title:Johnny Lee WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. C.A. TERHUNE, Warden…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Aug 18, 2003

Citations

72 F. App'x 697 (9th Cir. 2003)