WILLIAM ESTEY V. JEFF PREMO, No. 13-36223 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEC 02 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 13-36223 WILLIAM M. ESTEY, Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 6:12-cv-01430-CL v. MEMORANDUM* JEFF PREMO, Superintendent; STATE OF OREGON, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Ann L. Aiken, Chief District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 21, 2014** Portland, Oregon Before: CLIFTON, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. William M. Estey appeals the denial by the district court of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and affirm. * 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). 1. A federal court can only grant habeas relief to a state prisoner if a state court decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C § 2254(d)(1). An unreasonable decision is one that is “so lacking in justification” that it is “beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.” White v. Woodall, 134 S. Ct. 1697, 1702 (2014) (quoting Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770, 786–87 (2011)). 2. Estey has not established that the decision of the Oregon Court of Appeals rejecting his double jeopardy claim was unreasonable.1 Estey was aware from the outset that his sentence was 225 months, and could not legitimately have believed that any alleged ambiguity in the written judgment changed the oral sentence. The state court’s determination that the trial court did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause by amending the written judgment to clearly conform to the oral sentence was not unreasonable. AFFIRMED. 1 The Oregon Court of Appeals rejected Estey’s double jeopardy claim without discussion. However, if after an independent review of the record this court finds the decision of the state court reasonable, there can be no relief under § 2254(d). See Greene v. Lambert, 288 F.3d 1081, 1088–89 (9th Cir. 2002). 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.
