Court Opinion

ID: 9811814
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:29:34.045538+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:21:40.385637
License: Public Domain

WATFORD, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the judgment:
' The district court did not err by holding an evidentiary hearing. An evidentiary hearing was warranted here because the state habeas court refused to hold an evi-dentiary hearing of its own, despite the fact that it was presented with conflicting, plausible evidence on the key factual issue underlying petitioner’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim: whether counsel had conveyed the State’s eight-year plea offer to petitioner. See Earp v. Omoski, 431 F.3d 1158, 1167 (9th Cir.2005). After conducting an evidentiary hearing and hearing live testimony from the key players, the magistrate judge properly found that counsel had in fact conveyed the plea offer to petitioner, and that counsel therefore did not render ineffective assistance. I would affirm the district court’s denial of habeas relief on that basis.