Contreras v. Garcia
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM*
Appellant Wayne Contreras requests a remand to district court for application of Bennett v. Mueller, 322 F.3d 573, 586 (9th Cir.2003), to his habeas petition. We see *103no need to remand this case, as the adequacy of a state procedural bar is a matter of law that we review de novo. See Cockett v. Ray, 333 F.3d 938, 941 (9th Cir.2003).
The California Supreme Court’s holding in In re Lindley, 29 Cal.2d 709, 723, 177 P.2d 918 (1947), that sufficieney-of-the-evidence issues are not cognizable on habeas and must be raised on direct appeal, is an adequate and independent state ground upon…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Joseph Murl Bennett v. Glen Mueller, Warden Cal Terhune, Director Attorney General of the State of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- In Re GianniniCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
- In Re LindleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
- Richard Allan MORAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. E.K. McDANIEL, Warden, Respondent-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
- Crownover v. MusickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Contreras v. Garcia, WardenSupreme Court of the United States · 2004