Williams v. Hernandez

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit December 18, 2003

Williams v. Hernandez, 84 F. App'x 870 (9th Cir. 2003)

Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM ****

*871Williams has failed to rebut by clear and convincing evidence the state court’s factual finding that Randy Brown’s testimony was not derivative of Williams’s confession. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1).

In light of Brown’s testimony, any error in admitting the identification of Williams’s car as that used during the shooting was harmless. See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993).

Thus, Williams cannot show that any ineffective assistance by defense counsel Schaaf caused him prejudice. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687,104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

An evidentiary hearing was unnecessary. See § 2254(e)(2).

AFFIRMED.

xhiS 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.

Reference

Full Case Name: Louis Alan WILLIAMS v. Robert J. HERNANDEZ, Warden Attorney General of the State of California
Status: Published