Thomas v. Castro
This text of 69 F. App'x 399 (Thomas v. Castro) 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
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]*400believed this argument would be unsuccessful.
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
69 F. App'x 399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-castro-ca9-2003.