From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dean v. Schriro

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Mar 17, 2010
371 F. App'x 751 (9th Cir. 2010)

Opinion

No. 08-16094.

Submitted February 10, 2010.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed March 17, 2010.

Daniel Robert Drake, Drake Law, PLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Stephen C. Dean, pro se.

Karla Delord, Assistant U.S., USPX — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Respondents-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 2:07-cv-01437-SRB.

Before: O'SCANNLAIN, TROTT and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Stephen Dean appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo the district court's denial of the petition, Gonzalez v. Brown, 585 F.3d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm.

We decline to decide whether a failure to exhaust or a procedural bar precludes Dean from obtaining federal habeas relief on his prosecutorial vindictiveness claim and instead deny his petition on the merits. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2); Lambrix v. Singletary, 520 U.S. 518, 525, 117 S.Ct. 1517, 137 L.Ed.2d 771 (1997); Holley v. Yarborough, 568 F.3d 1091, 1098 (9th Cir. 2009). Dean has presented no "direct evidence of actual vindictiveness or facts that warrant an appearance of such," nor has he offered any evidence "indicating a realistic or reasonable likelihood of vindictiveness." Nunes v. Ramirez-Palmer, 485 F.3d 432, 441-42 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Indeed, the record shows that the prosecutor made the plea offer's expiration date clear over a week before Dean requested new counsel. This dispels any inference that the prosecution impermissibly declined to extend the plea deal in order to punish Dean for exercising his constitutional right to conflict-free counsel. Because Dean's claim clearly fails on the merits, we affirm the district court's denial of his petition for habeas relief.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Dean v. Schriro

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Mar 17, 2010
371 F. App'x 751 (9th Cir. 2010)
Case details for

Dean v. Schriro

Case Details

Full title:Stephen C. DEAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dora SCHRIRO; et al.…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Mar 17, 2010

Citations

371 F. App'x 751 (9th Cir. 2010)

Citing Cases

Smith v. Allen

; see also Franklin v. Johnson, 290 F.3d 1223, 1232 (9th Cir. 2002) (stating that courts may “reach the…

Ragan v. Ducart

.” Franklin, 290 F.3d at 1232; see, e.g., Dean v. Schriro, 371 Fed.Appx. 751 (9th Cir. Mar. 17, 2010).…