THOMAS LE’ROY HENNAGAN, Jr. v. K. Prosper; Attorney General of the State of California

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
THOMAS LE’ROY HENNAGAN, Jr.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
K. PROSPER; ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 09-15342
D.C. No. 2:04-cv-01900-JAM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Thomas Le’Roy Hennagan, Jr., appeals from the
district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging
his 2000 conviction for vehicle theft and receiving stolen property. We have
FILED
JUL 02 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-15342 2
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Hennagan first contends that his trial and appellate counsel rendered
ineffective assistance. The state court’s rejection of this claim was not contrary to,
or an unreasonable application of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-97
(1984). See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
Hennagan next contends that the trial court’s denial of his motion for new
trial and the admission into evidence of his prior conviction for vehicle theft
violated his constitutional rights. The state court’s determination that Hennagan’s
constitutional rights were not violated was also not contrary to, or an unreasonable
application of, clearly established United States Supreme Court precedent. See 28
U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-70 (1991).
Last, to the extent Hennagan challenges the application of California law,
such challenges are not cognizable in federal habeas proceedings. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(a); Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990) (“[F]ederal habeas corpus
relief does not lie for errors of state law[.]”).
Marylou Elin Hillberg’s motion to withdraw as Hennagan’s counsel is
granted.
Hennagan’s motion to substitute counsel is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --