Michael David Wilson v. FRANK X. CHAVEZ and ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL DAVID WILSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
FRANK X. CHAVEZ and ATTORNEY
GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 12-55744
D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00599-IEG-
BLM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Irma E. Gonzalez, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued December 10, 2014 Submitted March 17, 2015
Pasadena, California
Before: PREGERSON, NOONAN, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Michael David Wilson appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas
corpus petition, in which he claimed he received an additional three years and four
months’ imprisonment due to his public defender’s ineffective assistance. We
FILED
MAR 23 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

-- 1 of 2 --

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo a district court’s
denial of a habeas petition, Stanley v. Cullen, 633 F.3d 852, 859 (9th Cir. 2011),
and we affirm.
Wilson alleged the prosecutor made him a plea offer of six years, which he
instructed his attorney to accept immediately, but the offer expired before she did
so. We conclude the California Court of Appeal’s application of Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable
application of, clearly established federal law because Wilson failed to establish
sufficient prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697. Nor
was the state court’s decision an “unreasonable determination of the facts in light
of the evidence presented” because Wilson contradicted himself on the record, and
failed to provide reasonably available supporting evidence. See 28 U.S.C. §
2254(d)(2); Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770, 785-87 (2011). Lastly, Cullen v.
Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388, 1398 (2011), bars federal courts from granting an
evidentiary hearing where, as here, a claim was adjudicated on the merits in state
court.
AFFIRMED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --