Legal Opinion
Eitel v. Gorman
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided February 17, 2006No. 03-35272Published
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM **
Jeramie Eitel appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo the district court’s denial of a habeas petition, see Dows v. Wood, 211 F.3d 480, 484 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying counsel’s motion to withdraw and for a continuance to allow new counsel, due to irreconcilable differences. However, upon review of the record, we conclude that the denial did not result in a deprivation of constitutionally effective…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Williams v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Wayne Dale Schell v. Larry Witek, Warden Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, State of California, 1Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
- Kenneth Paul Dows v. Tana WoodCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
- Lary James Plumlee v. Frankie Sue Del Papa John IgnacioCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005