Chris Anthony George v. Raymond Madden
Filing
61
ORDER RE: PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS by Judge R. Gary Klausner. Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon review of the parties' arguments, the Court DENIES the Petition 1 for the following reasons: (1) the facts and evidence indicate that Petitioner made the decision to go to trial on his own volition; (2) Petitioner has failed to provide evidence showing that Attorney Davitt's advice was ungrounded or otherwise u nreasonable; (3) Petitioner has failed to show that Attorney Davitt provided false, misleading, or otherwise inaccurate information to him. While in hindsight, Attorney Davitt's advice led to a negative outcome for Petitioner, this alone does not constitute adequate grounds for prevailing on a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. (wr)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
CHRIS ANTHONY GEORGE,
11
12
13
14
Plaintiff(s),
vs.
RAYMOND MADDEN,
Defendant(s).
15
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 5:16-cv-01016-RGK-AJW
ORDER RE PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS
16
17
Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus on the ground of ineffective assistance of
18
counsel. Upon review of the parties’ arguments, the Court DENIES the Petition for the
19
following reasons: (1) the facts and evidence indicate that Petitioner made the decision to go to
20
trial on his own volition; (2) Petitioner has failed to provide evidence showing that Attorney
21
Davitt’s advice was ungrounded or otherwise unreasonable; (3) Petitioner has failed to show that
22
Attorney Davitt provided false, misleading, or otherwise inaccurate information to him. While
23
in hindsight, Attorney Davitt’s advice led to a negative outcome for Petitioner, this alone does
24
not constitute adequate grounds for prevailing on a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel.
25
26
27
28
Dated: February 8, 2018
R. GARY KLAUSNER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?