Cochran v. Gorman

Ninth Circuit

Cochran v. Gorman

178 F. App'x 635

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 25, 2006

DocketNo. 05-35419

StatusPublished

This text of 178 F. App'x 635 (Cochran v. Gorman) 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

Cochran v. Gorman, 178 F. App'x 635 (9th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

***

1. The determination that the state trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Michael Cochran’s untimely motions to substitute counsel was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, and was not based upon an unreasonable determination of the facts under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). See United States v. Garcia, 924 F.2d 925, 926-27 (9th Cir.1991). Because there had been multiple continuances before Cochran moved to substitute counsel days before the scheduled trial, and because Cochran fails to show prejudice, he cannot overcome the broad discretion afforded to trial courts on matters of continuances. See United States v. Schaff, 948 F.2d 501, 504-05 (9th Cir.1991); see also Morris v. Slap-py, 461 U.S. 1, 11-12, 103 S.Ct. 1610, 75 L.Ed.2d 610 (1983).

2. We decline to expand the scope of Cochran’s certificate of appealability to include the uncertified issue of ineffective assistance of counsel, because Cochran fails to make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Barker v. Fleming, 423 F.3d 1085, 1089 n. 1 (9th Cir.2005) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit 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

***

1. The determination that the state trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Michael Cochran’s untimely motions to substitute counsel was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, and was not based upon an unreasonable determination of the facts under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). See United States v. Garcia, 924 F.2d 925, 926-27 (9th Cir.1991). Because there had been multiple continuances before Cochran moved to substitute counsel days before the scheduled trial, and because Cochran fails to show prejudice, he cannot overcome the broad discretion afforded to trial courts on matters of continuances. See United States v. Schaff, 948 F.2d 501, 504-05 (9th Cir.1991); see also Morris v. Slap-py, 461 U.S. 1, 11-12, 103 S.Ct. 1610, 75 L.Ed.2d 610 (1983).

2. We decline to expand the scope of Cochran’s certificate of appealability to include the uncertified issue of ineffective assistance of counsel, because Cochran fails to make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Barker v. Fleming, 423 F.3d 1085, 1089 n. 1 (9th Cir.2005) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)).

AFFIRMED.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 F. App'x 635, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cochran-v-gorman-ca9-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack