Unpublished Disposition, 855 F.2d 862 (9th Cir. 1988)
Annotate this CaseFreeman W. STANTON, Petitioner-Appellant,v.Henry RISLEY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 87-3958.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 8, 1988.* Decided July 29, 1988.
Before KOELSCH, KILKENNY and FARRIS, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
Freeman W. Stanton appeals pro se the district court's denial and dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Although Stanton raised a host of issues in his petition before the district court, he has properly raised only one of those issues on appeal, viz., ineffective assistance of counsel.1
Whatever the truthfulness of Stanton's allegations that the public defender assigned to represent him failed to request a change of venue or to seek a substitution of the trial judge, we note that Stanton has neither alleged nor shown any prejudice resulting from these putative deficiencies of counsel. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 693 (1984). Similarly, Stanton has not alleged, and the record does not reflect, facts suggesting that he would have insisted on going to trial but for his counsel's mistakes. See Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985). There was no error.
The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for submission on the record and briefs and without oral argument per FRAP 34(a) and CA9 Rule 34-4
This disposition is inappropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this Circuit except as provided by CA9 Rule 36-3
Stanton's handwritten notice of appeal contains a list of issues neither argued nor referred to in his appellate brief. We deem such issues abandoned and decline to review them. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (CA9 1988). Similarly, Stanton appears to contend that he should have been permitted to withdraw an acknowledgment of waiver form and that the State of Montana did not prove its case against him. Whatever the bases for these contentions, we note that Stanton failed to raise these two claims before the district court in his underlying petition. The district court not having been afforded the opportunity to address these issues, we decline to review them now. See United States v. Rubalcaba, 811 F.2d 491, 493 (CA9), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 108 S. Ct. 107 (1987)
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.
