Pablo Valle v. Hedgpath

Ninth Circuit

Pablo Valle v. Hedgpath

471 F. App'x 650

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 8, 2012

Docket10-16031

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 471 F. App'x 650 (Pablo Valle v. Hedgpath) 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

Pablo Valle v. Hedgpath, 471 F. App'x 650 (9th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Pablo China Valle appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Valle’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have conducted an independent review of each of the issues for which the district court granted a certificate of appealability, and we conclude that there are no arguable grounds for habeas relief.

The California Court of Appeal’s determination that the trial court committed harmless error by leaving out the “distinctively worse” element of the “planning and sophistication” aggravating factor jury instruction was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the United States Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).

The California Court of Appeal’s determination that Valle’s upper-term and consecutive sentences did not violate his Sixth Amendment rights was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the United States Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160, 163-64, 129 S.Ct. 711, 172 L.Ed.2d 517 (2009); Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 301, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004).

Finally, because there is no reasonable probability that the result of the proceed *651 ing would have been different had Valle’s counsel challenged the upper-term or consecutive sentences, the state court’s denial of Valle’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the United States Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Valle’s counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

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 **

California state prisoner Pablo China Valle appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Valle’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have conducted an independent review of each of the issues for which the district court granted a certificate of appealability, and we conclude that there are no arguable grounds for habeas relief.

The California Court of Appeal’s determination that the trial court committed harmless error by leaving out the “distinctively worse” element of the “planning and sophistication” aggravating factor jury instruction was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the United States Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).

The California Court of Appeal’s determination that Valle’s upper-term and consecutive sentences did not violate his Sixth Amendment rights was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the United States Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160, 163-64, 129 S.Ct. 711, 172 L.Ed.2d 517 (2009); Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 301, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004).

Finally, because there is no reasonable probability that the result of the proceed *651 ing would have been different had Valle’s counsel challenged the upper-term or consecutive sentences, the state court’s denial of Valle’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the United States Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Valle’s counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

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)

471 F. App'x 650, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pablo-valle-v-hedgpath-ca9-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack