Opinion ID: 1446130
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Habeas Review Under. AEDPA and Carey v. Musladin

Text: The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 106 (AEDPA) provides that [a]n application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). As a preliminary matter, we conclude that the state court, decision was not premised on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). The state trial court held an evidentiary hearing and its factual findings are supported by the record. Cf. Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231, 241 D. 2, 125 S.Ct. 2317, 162 L.Ed.2d 196 (2005) (state court factfinding must be assessed `in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding' (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2))). These findings are entitled to a presumption of correctness. Plumlee has not rebutted them by clear and convincing evidence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). We now turn to whether the Nevada Supreme Court's determination was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). We review the `last reasoned decision' by a state court. Gautt v. Lewis, 489 F.3d 993, 1002 (9th Cir.2007) (quoting Robinson v. Ignacio, 360 F.3d 1044, 1055 (9th Cir.2004)). As it pertains to AEDPA, clearly established federal law is the governing legal principle or principles set forth by the Supreme. Court at the time the state court renders its decision. Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 71-72, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003); see also Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 660-61, 124 S.Ct. 2140, 158 L.Ed.2d 938 (2004); Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 520, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003). In Carey v. Musladin, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 649, 653-654, 166 L.Ed.2d 482 (2006), the Supreme Court recently emphasized that habeas relief is available only if the state court's decision is contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of the Supreme Court's own holdings. In that case, the Court reiterated its previously stated instruction that, clearly established Federal law in § 2254(d)(1) refers to the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of this Court's decisions as of the time of the relevant state-court decision. Id. at 653 (quoting Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000)). What matters are the holdings of the Supreme Court, not the holdings of lower federal courts.