U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2004

Murphy v. Carey

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided August 9, 2004 · Kozinski, Silverman, Weiner

104 F. App'x 648

Counsel

Vincent J. Brunkow, Shaun Khojayan, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant., Attorney General for the State of California, Holley A. Hoffman, San Diego, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Murphy v. Carey, Warden (Supreme Court of the United States 2005)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM***

The California courts’ rulings, that defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to advise Murphy that he was waiving his appeal rights by pleading guilty, were not contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, nor did they result in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. While the state courts employed a per se rule in reaching their decisions, the result they reached was not an unreasonable application of Supreme Court law since the totality of the circumstances showed that counsel’s failure to advise of the loss of appellate rights was objectively reasonable. Accordingly, the decision of the district court, denying the 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition, is

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.