William Rennie, III v. Michael Martin ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             AUG 21 2013
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    WILLIAM RENNIE, III,                              No. 12-15156
    Petitioner - Appellant,             D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00698-WBS-
    TJB
    v.
    MICHAEL MARTIN,                                   MEMORANDUM*
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of California
    William B. Shubb, Senior District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted August 15, 2013
    San Francisco, California
    Before: REINHARDT, GRABER, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    William Rennie, III, appeals the district court’s denial of his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
    habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
     and affirm.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    1. The decision of the California Superior Court, rejecting Rennie’s speedy trial
    claim, was not unreasonable. The state court applied settled federal law, recognizing
    that the lengthy delay here is “presumptively prejudicial,” Doggett v. United States,
    
    505 U.S. 647
    , 651-52 (1992), that the state “bears the burden of explaining pretrial
    delays,” McNeely v. Blanas, 
    336 F.3d 822
    , 827 (9th Cir. 2003), and that our tolerance
    of the delays attributable to state “negligence varies inversely with its protractedness,”
    Doggett, 
    505 U.S. at 657
    . But the California court also appropriately recognized that
    Rennie’s belated failure to invoke his speedy trial rights formally weighs heavily
    against him. See Barker v. Wingo, 
    407 U.S. 514
    , 531-32 (1972). In light of that
    failure and the absence of any evidence of actual prejudice, we cannot find the
    superior court’s decision unreasonable.
    2. Rennie’s ineffective assistance of counsel argument also fails. The superior
    court reasonably concluded that Rennie did not demonstrate “a reasonable probability
    that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have
    been different.” Strickland v. Washington, 
    466 U.S. 668
    , 694 (1984).
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-15156

Judges: Reinhardt, Graber, Hurwitz

Filed Date: 8/21/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024