Mulvihill v. Garcia
This text of 113 F. App'x 289 (Mulvihill v. Garcia) 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.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Stephen Patrick Mulvihill appeals pro se the district [290]*290court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Mulvihill contends that his due process rights were violated when the California Court of Appeal applied a preponderance of the evidence standard in affirming Mulvihill’s upper term sentence based upon the sentencing court’s finding of aggravating factors. Upon review of the record, we conclude that California Court of Appeal’s resolution of the case was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79, 91-92, 106 S.Ct. 2411, 91 L.Ed.2d 67 (1986).1 Accordingly, the district court properly denied Mulvihill’s habeas petition.
Mulvihill further contends that the district court erred in failing to afford him an evidentiary hearing. We disagree. Mulvihill’s claim can be resolved by reference to state court record. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing. See Totten v. Merkle, 137 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir.1998).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the [290]*290courts 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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
113 F. App'x 289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mulvihill-v-garcia-ca9-2004.