Frantz v. Hazey , 368 F. App'x 794 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 02 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KARL ADOLPH FRANTZ, No. 05-16024
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. CV-04-00135-WDB
v.
MEMORANDUM *
HERBERT HAZEY; DORA B.
SCHRIRO, Director,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
William D. Browning, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 22, 2007
San Francisco, California
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, SCHROEDER, PREGERSON,
O’SCANNLAIN, RYMER, THOMAS, SILVERMAN, GRABER, WARDLAW,
GOULD, PAEZ, BERZON, CALLAHAN, BEA and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Karl Adolph Frantz appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a
writ of habeas corpus challenging his conviction by a jury for attempted armed
robbery. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
the district court’s denial of a habeas petition, Gill v. Ayers, 342 F.3d 911, 917 (9th
Cir. 2003), and we affirm as to the issues here covered.1
Frantz contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during
plea negotiations in violation of the Sixth Amendment because his attorney failed
to investigate the state’s allegation that he committed the instant offense while on
probation for a Florida offense. We disagree. Frantz failed to show that his
counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, or that
any deficient performance caused prejudice. See Strickland v. Washington, 466
U.S. 668, 687 (1984). The state court’s decision rejecting Frantz’s claim therefore
was not “contrary to, or . . . an unreasonable application of, clearly established
Federal law.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
Frantz’s contention that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to prepare
his defense in propia persona because he was denied access to the law library at
the jail also fails. Frantz was appointed advisory counsel and thus was provided
with an alternative means for preparing his defense. See Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S.
1
The district court granted a certificate of appealability with regard to the
two claims covered in this memorandum disposition. In a separate opinion, Frantz
v. Hazey, 533 F.3d 724 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc), we reversed the district court’s
denial of Frantz’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and remanded for an
evidentiary hearing on Frantz’s claim challenging his exclusion from a chambers
conference.
-2-
817, 828 (1977) (holding that “the fundamental constitutional right of access to the
courts requires prison authorities to assist inmates in the preparation and filing of
meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with adequate law libraries or
adequate assistance from persons trained in the law”) (emphasis added). To the
extent that Frantz asserts that his advisory counsel did not provide him with
adequate legal research or assistance, this contention is entirely conclusory and
does not entitle him to relief. See James v. Borg, 24 F.3d 20, 26 (9th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART BY
PREVIOUS SEPARATE OPINION.
-3-