Gonzalez v. Travis

Second Circuit

Gonzalez v. Travis

45 F. App'x 83

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedSeptember 17, 2002

DocketDocket No. 01-2711

StatusPublished

This text of 45 F. App'x 83 (Gonzalez v. Travis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gonzalez v. Travis, 45 F. App'x 83 (2d Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

[84]*84SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of said District Court be and hereby is AFFIRMED.

Petitioner Gonzalez timely appeals from the District Court’s Opinions and Orders entered November 2, 2001, and Judgment entered November 6, 2001, which denied the petition for habeas corpus.

The District Court having granted a certificate of appealability, petitioner claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at his state trial, when trial counsel failed to locate a witness who would have corroborated petitioner’s explanation of how he disposed of the victim’s money, and that the District Court erred when it rejected his Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) claim, based on the prosecution’s failure to disclose that a potential witness provided information to another prosecutor corroborating petitioner’s explanation of how the victim’s money was lost.

Plaintiff raises the same issues on appeal.

We affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the District Court in its Opinion and Order entered November 2, 2001. See Gonzalez v. Travis, 2001 WL 1352461 (S.D.N.Y.).

For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.

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

[84]*84SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of said District Court be and hereby is AFFIRMED.

Petitioner Gonzalez timely appeals from the District Court’s Opinions and Orders entered November 2, 2001, and Judgment entered November 6, 2001, which denied the petition for habeas corpus.

The District Court having granted a certificate of appealability, petitioner claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at his state trial, when trial counsel failed to locate a witness who would have corroborated petitioner’s explanation of how he disposed of the victim’s money, and that the District Court erred when it rejected his Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) claim, based on the prosecution’s failure to disclose that a potential witness provided information to another prosecutor corroborating petitioner’s explanation of how the victim’s money was lost.

Plaintiff raises the same issues on appeal.

We affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the District Court in its Opinion and Order entered November 2, 2001. See Gonzalez v. Travis, 2001 WL 1352461 (S.D.N.Y.).

For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 F. App'x 83, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzalez-v-travis-ca2-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack