Legal Research AI

Luis Roberto Martinez v. Darrel Adams

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Date filed: 2010-01-25
Citations: 362 F. App'x 882
Copy Citations
Click to Find Citing Cases
Combined Opinion
                              NOT FOR PUBLICATION

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       FILED
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                          JAN 25 2010

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                          U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

 LUIS ROBERTO MARTINEZ,                           No. 08-56083

                Petitioner - Appellant,           D.C. No. 2:05-cv-04057-DSF

   v.
                                                  MEMORANDUM *
 DARREL G. ADAMS, Warden,

                Respondent - Appellee.



                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Central District of California
                       Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding

                              Submitted January 11, 2010 **

Before:         BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

        California state prisoner Luis Roberto Martinez appeals from the district

court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

SM S/Research
       Martinez contends his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to conduct an

adequate investigation and present evidence concerning the defense of third-party

culpability. The record reflects that the state court’s rejection of this claim was

neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal

law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

       AFFIRMED.




SMS/Research                               2                                     08-56083