Case ID: f-appx_84/html/0870-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Louis Alan WILLIAMS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Robert J. HERNANDEZ, Warden;  Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents—Appellees.
    No. 02-55972.
    D.C. No. CV-99-10193-MRP.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 3, 2003.
    
    Decided Dec. 18, 2003.
    Louis Alan Williams, pro se, Soledad, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Matthew C. Mulford, Esq., AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before BEEZER and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZER, Senior District Judge.
    
    
      
       Robert J. Hernandez, Warden, is substituted as a party for Chuck Cottier, Warden. See Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
    
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable William W Schwarzer, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Williams has failed to rebut by clear and convincing evidence the state court’s factual finding that Randy Brown’s testimony was not derivative of Williams’s confession. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1).

In light of Brown’s testimony, any error in admitting the identification of Williams’s car as that used during the shooting was harmless. See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993).

Thus, Williams cannot show that any ineffective assistance by defense counsel Schaaf caused him prejudice. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687,104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

An evidentiary hearing was unnecessary. See § 2254(e)(2).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       xhiS 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.