Everett Reedy v. Jean Hill

Ninth Circuit

Everett Reedy v. Jean Hill

383 F. App'x 689

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 14, 2010

Docket08-35188

StatusUnpublished

This text of 383 F. App'x 689 (Everett Reedy v. Jean Hill) 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

Everett Reedy v. Jean Hill, 383 F. App'x 689 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Oregon state prisoner Everett V. Reedy appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

The district court dismissed the petition, among other reasons, because it was untimely. Reedy contends that his petition was timely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(C) because he filed it within one year of the Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). This argument lacks merit because Reedy’s conviction and sentence became final before Blakely was decided. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(C); see also Schardt v. Payne, 414 F.3d 1025, 1038 (9th Cir.2005) (concluding that the new rule announced in Blakely does not apply retroactively to a conviction and sentence that were final before that decision was announced).

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Reedy’s contention that he has a constitutional right to a unanimous jury verdict.

To the extent that Reedy contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, we construe Reedy’s briefing as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1 (e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).

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 **

Oregon state prisoner Everett V. Reedy appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

The district court dismissed the petition, among other reasons, because it was untimely. Reedy contends that his petition was timely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(C) because he filed it within one year of the Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). This argument lacks merit because Reedy’s conviction and sentence became final before Blakely was decided. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(C); see also Schardt v. Payne, 414 F.3d 1025, 1038 (9th Cir.2005) (concluding that the new rule announced in Blakely does not apply retroactively to a conviction and sentence that were final before that decision was announced).

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Reedy’s contention that he has a constitutional right to a unanimous jury verdict.

To the extent that Reedy contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, we construe Reedy’s briefing as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1 (e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).

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)

383 F. App'x 689, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/everett-reedy-v-jean-hill-ca9-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack