Case Name: Thomas E. BREWSTER, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Roderick Q. HICKMAN, Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Respondent-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-20
Citations: 171 F. App'x 701
Docket Number: No. 05-15701; D.C. No. CV-03-02265-MCE
Parties: Thomas E. BREWSTER, Petitioner—Appellee, v. Roderick Q. HICKMAN, Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Respondent—Appellant.
Judges: Before RYMER, W. FLETCHER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 171
Pages: 701–702

Head Matter:
Thomas E. BREWSTER, Petitioner—Appellee, v. Roderick Q. HICKMAN, Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Respondent—Appellant.
No. 05-15701.
D.C. No. CV-03-02265-MCE.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted March 14, 2006.
Decided March 20, 2006.
Ann C. McClintock, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Sacramento, CA, for Petitioner — Appellee.
Brian Means, Office of the California Attorney General, Department of Justice, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent — Appellant.
Before RYMER, W. FLETCHER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
At the request of the California Attorney General’s office, Roderick Q. Hickman, who currently serves as the Secretaiy of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, has been substituted as respondent.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The State of California appeals the district court's grant of an unconditional writ of habeas corpus to Thomas E. Brewster. Brewster claims that he suffered ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal before the California Court of Appeal. Though the parties agree that Brewster's appellate counsel's performance was deficient on direct review, Brewster has not shown a reasonable probability that the California Court of Appeal would have reversed the trial court's denial of his suppression motion but for his counsel's filing of a Wende brief. See Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 285, 120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756 (2000). He thus failed to establish that he was prejudiced by his counsel's performance. See id. at 286-87, 120 S.Ct. 746. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court erred in granting the habeas petition.
REVERSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.