Case ID: f-appx_369/html/0852-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jose Antonio BARRIOS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. G.J. GIURBINO, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 07-56256.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed March 5, 2010.
    Gary Paul Burcham, Law Office of Debra Dilorio, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    David C. Cook, Esquire, Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-05-03642-JFW.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, 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 prisoner Jose Antonio Barrios appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Barrios contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to communicate a plea offer to him which would have avoided a 25-years-to-life sentence pursuant to California’s “Three Strikes” law. Because the record demonstrates that the prosecution never offered Barrios a plea offer, the California Supreme Court’s rejection of this claim was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

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