Hall v. Terhune

Ninth Circuit

Hall v. Terhune

121 F. App'x 256

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 11, 2005

DocketNo. 03-16256; D.C. No. CV-01-00306-SI

StatusPublished

This text of 121 F. App'x 256 (Hall v. Terhune) 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

Hall v. Terhune, 121 F. App'x 256 (9th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

California state prisoner Bruce J. Hall appeals the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his 25-years-to-life sentence under California’s three-strikes law. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Hall contends that the trial court erred by using his 1987 prior conviction as a “strike” to enhance his sentence to 25-years-to-life, because the plea agreement in his prior conviction proceeding included a promise to limit prospective use of that conviction to a five-year enhancement. Because Hall did not raise this claim in his habeas petition to the district court, the claim is waived. See Belgarde v. State of Montana, 123 F.3d 1210, 1215-16 (9th Cir. 1997).

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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

California state prisoner Bruce J. Hall appeals the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his 25-years-to-life sentence under California’s three-strikes law. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Hall contends that the trial court erred by using his 1987 prior conviction as a “strike” to enhance his sentence to 25-years-to-life, because the plea agreement in his prior conviction proceeding included a promise to limit prospective use of that conviction to a five-year enhancement. Because Hall did not raise this claim in his habeas petition to the district court, the claim is waived. See Belgarde v. State of Montana, 123 F.3d 1210, 1215-16 (9th Cir. 1997).

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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 F. App'x 256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-terhune-ca9-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack