Case ID: f-appx_84/html/0810-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Anthony Steven GEOTIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Darla ELLIOTT, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 03-15054.
    D.C. No. CV-98-00887-WKU.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 8, 2003.
    
    Decided Dec. 15, 2003.
    Anthony Steven Geotis, pro se, Newhall, CA, Petitioner.
    
      Katia Mehu, Office of the Attorney General, Phoenix, AZ, for Respondent.
    Before GOODWIN, WALLACE and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Anthony Steven Geotis appeals pro se the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition, which challenged his 1992 jury-trial conviction for possession of marijuana for sale. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Geotis contends that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing in order to adequately address the merits of his ineffective assistance of counsel claims.

The district court properly denied the request for an evidentiary hearing because Geotis failed to allege facts, if proved, that would entitle him to habeas relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims. See Tinsley v. Borg, 895 F.2d 520, 530 (9th Cir.1990).

To the extent Geotis argues he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel, his claims do not merit habeas relief because Geotis does not demonstrate that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This 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.