Case Name: Charles Andrew WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Stuart J. RYAN; California Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-03-16
Citations: 472 F. App'x 457
Docket Number: No. 10-56605
Parties: Charles Andrew WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Stuart J. RYAN; California Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 472
Pages: 457–459

Head Matter:
Charles Andrew WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Stuart J. RYAN; California Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 10-56605.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Feb. 15, 2012.
Filed March 16, 2012.
Joel C. Golden, Esquire, Attorney at Law, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Matthew Mulford, Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before: PREGERSON, HAWKINS, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Charles Andrew Williams ("Williams") appeals the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Williams alleges on appeal that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing, that his trial and appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance, and that his 50-year sentence for two counts of murder and thirteen counts of attempted murder constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendments. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and affirm.
Where a state court summarily denies a habeas petition by issuing a one-line disposition, as the California Supreme Court did here, a federal court must nonetheless afford § 2254(d)(1) deference to that disposition under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. Harrington v. Richter, - U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 770, 784, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Williams an evidentiary hearing, since "review under 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the merits." Cullen v. Pinholster, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1388, 1398-99, 179 L.Ed.2d 557 (2011). And the California Supreme Court was not objectively unreasonable in determining that Williams's trial and appellate counsel was not objectively deficient or, even if deficient, did not prejudice Williams, nor was it objectively unreasonable in determining that Williams's sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments, applicable to the states though the Fourteenth Amendment. AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.