Andre Marcus Bragg v. Warden Galaza
253 F.3d 1150, 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4823, 2001 Daily Journal DAR 5945, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 12402, 2001 WL 641096
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJune 12, 2001
Docket99-16636
StatusPublished
Cited by73 cases
This text of 253 F.3d 1150 (Andre Marcus Bragg v. Warden Galaza) 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
Andre Marcus Bragg v. Warden Galaza, 253 F.3d 1150, 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4823, 2001 Daily Journal DAR 5945, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 12402, 2001 WL 641096 (9th Cir. 2001).
Opinion
ORDER
This court’s opinion, filed March 12, 2001, is amended as follows:
1. On page 3110 of the slip, the first sentence of the second full paragraph reads:
Here, while Bragg appealed his conviction in the state court alleging that facts on the record established ineffective assistance of counsel, he never moved for an evidentiary hearing to resolve any factual ambiguities.
The foregoing sentence should be replaced with the following sentence:
Here, while Bragg appealed his conviction in the state court alleging that facts on the record established ineffective assistance of counsel, he never moved for an evidentiary hearing in the trial court to resolve any factual ambiguities.
2. On page 3111 of the slip, the last sentence before the Conclusion reads:
Despite concerns about gaps in the record, we hold that AEDPA in this case precludes us from remanding for an evi-dentiary hearing.
The foregoing sentence should be replaced with the following sentences:
Diligence would require at least one step or the other to develop the factual basis of his claim. Bragg made no such efforts. Despite concerns about gaps in the record, we hold that AEDPA in this case precludes us from remanding for an evidentiary hearing.
With these amendments, the petition for rehearing dated March 21, 2001, is DENIED.
It is so ORDERED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Martin v. Cates
S.D. California, 2025
(HC) Yocom v. Allison
E.D. California, 2023
Jackson v. United States
D. Connecticut, 2023
Barron-Aguilar v. Najera
D. Nevada, 2023
Lopez v. Johnson
N.D. California, 2023
Nicholson v. Baker
D. Nevada, 2023
Miller v. State of Nevada
D. Nevada, 2023
Shaw v. Sherman
S.D. California, 2022
Bird v. Salmonsen
D. Montana, 2022
Cutrufelli v. Martinez
N.D. California, 2022
Hendrix v. Livingston
N.D. California, 2021
(HC) DeAnda v. Koenig
E.D. California, 2021
(HC) Harlow v. Ndoh
E.D. California, 2021
Schmidt v. Jaime
N.D. California, 2021
Valentini 268586 v. Shinn
D. Arizona, 2020
Whitfield III v. Pfeiffer
N.D. California, 2020
Young v. State of Nevada
D. Nevada, 2020
Boggs v. Shinn
D. Arizona, 2020
(HC) Gray v. Muniz
E.D. California, 2020
Vasquez v. Koenig
N.D. California, 2020
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
253 F.3d 1150, 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4823, 2001 Daily Journal DAR 5945, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 12402, 2001 WL 641096, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andre-marcus-bragg-v-warden-galaza-ca9-2001.