Case ID: f-appx_435/html/0704-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Clifford BRODSKY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony P. KANE, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 07-16804.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2011.
    
    Filed June 6, 2011.
    Clifford Brodsky, Soledad, CA, pro se.
    
      Jessica Nicole Blonien, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, Elizabeth S. Kim, Esquire, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state parolee Clifford Brodsky appeals pro se from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and we affirm.

Brodsky contends that because he pled no contest to conspiracy to commit second-degree murder, rather than conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, his plea agreement and constitutional rights were violated when the Board of Prison Terms relied on certain information to deny him parole in 2003.

The California Court of Appeal’s determination that the Board of Prison Terms was not constrained by the plea agreement was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court, and was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Penry v. Johnson, 532 U.S. 782, 792-93, 121 S.Ct. 1910, 150 L.Ed.2d 9 (2001).

Brodsky’s due process claim is not cognizable on federal habeas review. Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 859, 863, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam).

To the extent Brodsky raises a claim that his plea was involuntary, that claim is belied by the record.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.