WILLIAM RENNIE, III V. MICHAEL MARTIN, No. 12-15156 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED AUG 21 2013 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WILLIAM RENNIE, III, Petitioner - Appellant, No. 12-15156 D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00698-WBSTJB v. MICHAEL MARTIN, MEMORANDUM* Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California William B. Shubb, Senior District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted August 15, 2013 San Francisco, California Before: REINHARDT, GRABER, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. William Rennie, III, appeals the district court s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. 1. The decision of the California Superior Court, rejecting Rennie s speedy trial claim, was not unreasonable. The state court applied settled federal law, recognizing that the lengthy delay here is presumptively prejudicial, Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647, 651-52 (1992), that the state bears the burden of explaining pretrial delays, McNeely v. Blanas, 336 F.3d 822, 827 (9th Cir. 2003), and that our tolerance of the delays attributable to state negligence varies inversely with its protractedness, Doggett, 505 U.S. at 657. But the California court also appropriately recognized that Rennie s belated failure to invoke his speedy trial rights formally weighs heavily against him. See Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 531-32 (1972). In light of that failure and the absence of any evidence of actual prejudice, we cannot find the superior court s decision unreasonable. 2. Rennie s ineffective assistance of counsel argument also fails. The superior court reasonably concluded that Rennie did not demonstrate a reasonable probability that, but for counsel s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984). AFFIRMED.

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.