Andres Gonzalez v. Edward J. Caden

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
JC/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANDRES GONZALEZ,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
EDWARD J. CADEN,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 07-55507
D.C. No. 2:04-cv-04795-GAF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Gary A. Feess, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Andres Gonzalez appeals from the district court’s
judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we vacate and remand.
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

We note that defense counsel’s performance was far from stellar. See, e.g.,1
In re Vargas, 83 Cal. App. 4th 1125 (Ct. App. 2000) (enumerating defense
counsel’s performance in past cases).
JC/Research 07-55507 2
Gonzalez contends that his defense counsel was ineffective by failing to
present the testimony of Dagoberto Cardona. We vacate the district court’s denial
of the habeas petition and remand to the district court to hold an evidentiary
hearing and rule on the merits of Gonzalez’s ineffective assistance of counsel
claim. See Scott v. Schriro, 567 F.3d 573, 584 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam)1
(remanding to district court to conduct an evidentiary hearing); see also Houston v.
Schomig, 533 F.3d 1076, 1083 n.4 (9th Cir. 2008) (remanding sua sponte).
VACATED; REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --