Thomas v. Castro
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
The district court did not err in dismissing the petitioner’s habeas corpus petition with prejudice. Appellate counsel’s decision not to raise on appeal the trial court’s denial of a continuance did not fall “below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Because the trial court has considerable discretion with respect to granting continuances, United States v. Tham, 960 F.2d 1391, 1396 (9th Cir.1991), and fully supported its ruling denying the continuance, appellate counsel reasonably could have [400] believed this argument would be unsuccessful.
AFFIRMED.
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
69 F. App'x 399 (Thomas v. Castro) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.