Aly Tamboura v. Robert Ayers

Ninth Circuit

Aly Tamboura v. Robert Ayers

550 F. App'x 489

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 23, 2013

Docket11-17243

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 550 F. App'x 489 (Aly Tamboura v. Robert Ayers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aly Tamboura v. Robert Ayers, 550 F. App'x 489 (9th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Aly Tamboura (“Petitioner”) appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Tamboura contends that the state trial court violated his due process right to an impartial decisionmaker at his probation revocation hearing.

We have jurisdiction to review the final order of the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We review the underlying state court ruling pursuant to the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

The trial court judge conducted an in-depth probation revocation hearing to explore whether Petitioner violated the conditions of his probation and whether those violations were willful. After determining that Petitioner’s conduct constituted a willful violation by a preponderance of the evidence, see People v. Rodriguez, 51 Cal.3d 437, 272 Cal.Rptr. 613, 795 P.2d 783, 789 (1990), the trial court judge imposed the suspended sentence.

Petitioner has not demonstrated that the trial court judge predetermined the result of the probation revocation hearing. The trial court judge’s statements during the proceedings did not display the type of deep-seated antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994) (“[Jjudicial remarks during the course of a trial that are critical or disapproving of, or even hostile to, counsel, the parties, or their cases, ordinarily do not support a bias or partiality challenge.”).

On the basis of the record, and taking into account the high degree of deference that the court must afford to the findings of the state appellate court, see Hibbler v. Benedetti, 693 F.3d 1140, 1146 (9th Cir. 2012), cert denied, — U.S. —, 133 S.Ct. 1262, 185 L.Ed.2d 204 (2013), we affirm the district court’s denial of the petition.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Aly Tamboura (“Petitioner”) appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Tamboura contends that the state trial court violated his due process right to an impartial decisionmaker at his probation revocation hearing.

We have jurisdiction to review the final order of the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We review the underlying state court ruling pursuant to the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

The trial court judge conducted an in-depth probation revocation hearing to explore whether Petitioner violated the conditions of his probation and whether those violations were willful. After determining that Petitioner’s conduct constituted a willful violation by a preponderance of the evidence, see People v. Rodriguez, 51 Cal.3d 437, 272 Cal.Rptr. 613, 795 P.2d 783, 789 (1990), the trial court judge imposed the suspended sentence.

Petitioner has not demonstrated that the trial court judge predetermined the result of the probation revocation hearing. The trial court judge’s statements during the proceedings did not display the type of deep-seated antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994) (“[Jjudicial remarks during the course of a trial that are critical or disapproving of, or even hostile to, counsel, the parties, or their cases, ordinarily do not support a bias or partiality challenge.”).

On the basis of the record, and taking into account the high degree of deference that the court must afford to the findings of the state appellate court, see Hibbler v. Benedetti, 693 F.3d 1140, 1146 (9th Cir. 2012), cert denied, — U.S. —, 133 S.Ct. 1262, 185 L.Ed.2d 204 (2013), we affirm the district court’s denial of the petition.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

550 F. App'x 489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aly-tamboura-v-robert-ayers-ca9-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack