Marco Antonio Ramirez, Petitioner-appellant, v. Peggy L. Kernan, Warden, Respondent-appellee, 91 F.3d 154 (9th Cir. 1996)
Annotate this CaseBefore: HUG, Chief Judge, SCHROEDER and POOLE, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
Marco Antonio Ramirez, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Ramirez contends that the district court erred by denying his petition because: (1) the California trial court's failure to instruct the jury sua sponte on involuntary intoxication and unconsciousness constituted harmful error, and (2) trial counsel's failure to request an involuntary intoxication and unconsciousness instruction denied Ramirez the effective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and review de novo, Sanders v. Ratelle, 21 F.3d 1446, 1451 (9th Cir. 1994). We affirm for the reasons set forth in the district court's order, which fully and fairly addressed Ramirez's claims.
Because we affirm the denial of relief under the former version of 28 U.S.C. § 2254, we do not consider whether the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 applies to this appeal.
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4. Accordingly, Ramirez's request for oral argument is denied
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
