Eduardo Amezcue v. J. Tim Ochoa
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM ***
Eduardo Amezeue petitions this court for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that (1) his thirteen-year sentence, to which he stipulated in a plea agreement, violated his Sixth Amendment rights under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 580 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) and Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270, 127 S.Ct. 856, 166 L.Ed.2d 856 (2007), and (2) his counsel was ineffective by failing to inform Amezeue of his Cunningham rights and failing to object to the “illegal” thirteen-year sentence. We reject both claims.
Amezeue had a choice between (a) going to trial on…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Williams v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- United States v. BroceSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Cunningham v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- People of Michigan v. Israel a VelezMichigan Court of Appeals · 2015
- Tyrese Williams v. Heather J. SteggallDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2025