Jose Antonio Barrios v. G.j. Giurbino

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
EH/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ANTONIO BARRIOS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
G.J. GIURBINO,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 07-56256
D.C. No. CV-05-03642-JFW
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
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.
FILED
MAR 05 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

EH/Research 07-56256 2
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 (1984).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --