621 Fed.Appx. 475 (9th Cir. 2015), 14-17202, Quintana v. Gipson

Docket Nº:14-17202
Citation:621 Fed.Appx. 475
Party Name:MISAEL QUINTANA, Petitioner - Appellant, v. CONNIE GIPSON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee
Attorney:For MISAEL QUINTANA, Petitioner - Appellant: Jonathan Grossman, Sixth District Appellate Program, Santa Clara, CA. For CONNIE GIPSON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee: Jill M. Thayer, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA - Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA.
Judge Panel:Before: PAEZ, MURGUIA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:October 29, 2015
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 475

621 Fed.Appx. 475 (9th Cir. 2015)

MISAEL QUINTANA, Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

CONNIE GIPSON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee

No. 14-17202

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

October 29, 2015

         Argued and Submitted October 21, 2015, Stanford, California

         NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)

          Appeal from the United States District Court. for the Northern District of California. Charles R. Breyer, Senior District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 3:13-cv-05819-CRB.

         For MISAEL QUINTANA, Petitioner - Appellant: Jonathan Grossman, Sixth District Appellate Program, Santa Clara, CA.

         For CONNIE GIPSON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee: Jill M. Thayer, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA - Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA.

         Before: PAEZ, MURGUIA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

          MEMORANDUM [*]

         California state prisoner Misael Quintana appeals from the district court's judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

         Quintana seeks relief from his in absentia conviction of aggravated sexual assault of a child under fourteen, in violation of

Page 476

California Penal Code section 269, and four counts of lewd or lascivious conduct on a child by duress, in violation of California Penal Code section 288(b)(1). Quintana contends that insufficient evidence supported the duress finding underlying his convictions, and that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance.1

         The prosecution presented evidence that Quintana undressed his daughter and induced sexual acts with " a direct or implied threat of . . . retribution" if she reported the abuse, People v. Cochran, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 416, 420, 103 Cal.App.4th 8 (Ct.App. 2002)--specifically, by threatening his daughter with the loss of visitation and physical punishment by her mother. Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, it was not objectively unreasonable for the California Court of Appeal to conclude that there was sufficient evidence from which a rational juror could infer duress and convict Quintana. See...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP