CHARLES WILLIAMS V. STUART RYAN, No. 10-56605 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAR 16 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS CHARLES ANDREW WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, No. 10-56605 D.C. No. 3:05-cv-00737-WQHWMC v. STUART J. RYAN; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, MEMORANDUM* Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted February 15, 2012 Pasadena, California Before: PREGERSON, HAWKINS, and BEA, Circuit Judges. Charles Andrew Williams ( Williams ) appeals the district court s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Williams alleges on appeal that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing, that his trial and appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance, and that his 50-year sentence for two counts of murder and * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. thirteen counts of attempted murder constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendments. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and affirm. Where a state court summarily denies a habeas petition by issuing a one-line disposition, as the California Supreme Court did here, a federal court must nonetheless afford § 2254(d)(1) deference to that disposition under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770, 784 (2011). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Williams an evidentiary hearing, since review under 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the merits. Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388, 1398-99 (2011). And the California Supreme Court was not objectively unreasonable in determining that Williams s trial and appellate counsel was not objectively deficient or, even if deficient, did not prejudice Williams, nor was it objectively unreasonable in determining that Williams s sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments, applicable to the states though the Fourteenth Amendment. AFFIRMED. 2
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.
