Charles Williams v. Stuart Ryan

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAR 16 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
CHARLES ANDREW WILLIAMS, No. 10-56605
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:05-cv-00737-WQH-
WMC
v.
STUART J. RYAN; CALIFORNIA MEMORANDUM*
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 15, 2012
Pasadena, California
Before: PREGERSON, HAWKINS, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Charles Andrew Williams (“Williams”) appeals the district court’s denial of
his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Williams alleges on appeal that he is
entitled to an evidentiary hearing, that his trial and appellate counsel provided
ineffective assistance, and that his 50-year sentence for two counts of murder and
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
thirteen counts of attempted murder constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in
violation of the Eighth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendments. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and affirm.
Where a state court summarily denies a habeas petition by issuing a one-line
disposition, as the California Supreme Court did here, a federal court must
nonetheless afford § 2254(d)(1) deference to that disposition under the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct.
770, 784 (2011).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Williams an
evidentiary hearing, since “review under 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that
was before the state court that adjudicated the merits.” Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S.
Ct. 1388, 1398-99 (2011). And the California Supreme Court was not objectively
unreasonable in determining that Williams’s trial and appellate counsel was not
objectively deficient or, even if deficient, did not prejudice Williams, nor was it
objectively unreasonable in determining that Williams’s sentence did not violate
the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments, applicable
to the states though the Fourteenth Amendment. AFFIRMED.
2