THOMAS HENNAGAN, JR. V. K. PROSPER, No. 09-15342 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED JUL 02 2012 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT THOMAS LE ROY HENNAGAN, Jr., Petitioner - Appellant, No. 09-15342 D.C. No. 2:04-cv-01900-JAM v. MEMORANDUM * K. PROSPER; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 26, 2012 ** Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Thomas Le Roy Hennagan, Jr., appeals from the district court s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his 2000 conviction for vehicle theft and receiving stolen property. We have * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm. Hennagan first contends that his trial and appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance. The state court s rejection of this claim was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-97 (1984). See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Hennagan next contends that the trial court s denial of his motion for new trial and the admission into evidence of his prior conviction for vehicle theft violated his constitutional rights. The state court s determination that Hennagan s constitutional rights were not violated was also not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established United States Supreme Court precedent. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-70 (1991). Last, to the extent Hennagan challenges the application of California law, such challenges are not cognizable in federal habeas proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990) ( [F]ederal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law[.] ). Marylou Elin Hillberg s motion to withdraw as Hennagan s counsel is granted. Hennagan s motion to substitute counsel is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 09-15342
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.
