Milan Pakes v. P.D. Brazelton

Ninth Circuit

Milan Pakes v. P.D. Brazelton

588 F. App'x 724

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 23, 2014

Docket13-16706

StatusUnpublished

This text of 588 F. App'x 724 (Milan Pakes v. P.D. Brazelton) 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

Milan Pakes v. P.D. Brazelton, 588 F. App'x 724 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Milan Paul Pakes, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and we affirm.

Trial counsel’s stipulation that Pakes “intended to flee from the traffic accident because he reasonably believed he would be sent back to prison if apprehended” was not more prejudicial than the alternative evidence that Pakes was on parole. Such evidence was relevant to his intent to flee and admissible under California law. See, e.g., People v. Scheer, 68 Cal.App.4th 1009, 1020 n. 2, 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 676 (Cal.Ct.App.1998); People v. Johnson, 15 Cal.App.4th 169, 176, 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 650 (Cal.Ct.App.1993). The stipulation was a sound strategic decision that did not prejudice Pakes. The state court’s rejection of his ineffective assistance claim was therefore not contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).

Pakes further argues that he was denied a fair trial due to cumulative prejudice resulting from several other errors made by his trial attorney and by the prosecutor. Since we cannot identify any individual error, no cumulative prejudice is possible. See Hayes v. Ayers, 632 F.3d 500, 504 (9th Cir.2011).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 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 **

Milan Paul Pakes, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and we affirm.

Trial counsel’s stipulation that Pakes “intended to flee from the traffic accident because he reasonably believed he would be sent back to prison if apprehended” was not more prejudicial than the alternative evidence that Pakes was on parole. Such evidence was relevant to his intent to flee and admissible under California law. See, e.g., People v. Scheer, 68 Cal.App.4th 1009, 1020 n. 2, 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 676 (Cal.Ct.App.1998); People v. Johnson, 15 Cal.App.4th 169, 176, 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 650 (Cal.Ct.App.1993). The stipulation was a sound strategic decision that did not prejudice Pakes. The state court’s rejection of his ineffective assistance claim was therefore not contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).

Pakes further argues that he was denied a fair trial due to cumulative prejudice resulting from several other errors made by his trial attorney and by the prosecutor. Since we cannot identify any individual error, no cumulative prejudice is possible. See Hayes v. Ayers, 632 F.3d 500, 504 (9th Cir.2011).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

588 F. App'x 724, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/milan-pakes-v-pd-brazelton-ca9-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack