899 F. 2d 19 - Ramirez v. Gasper
899 F2d 19 Ramirez v. Gasper
899 F.2d 19
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
James RAMIREZ, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
William GASPER, Warden; Arizona Attorney General,
Respondents-Appellees.
No. 88-2759.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Jan. 5, 1990.
Before CHOY, CANBY and WILLIAM A. NORRIS, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Advertisement
The petition for rehearing made by appellees is granted and the court has reviewed the matter in light of the petition for rehearing and the response thereto filed by the appellant.
Appellant Ramirez has not demonstrated that the failure to sever his trial from that of his codefendant establishes either deficiency in the performance of his counsel or probable prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). It does not appear that the testimony of Ramirez's codefendant would have created a different result in his trial because the evidence linking Ramirez to the burglaries at issue was quite strong. We therefore do not reach the question of whether Ramirez's counsel knew that his codefendant would testify. We withdraw the Memorandum Disposition filed on September 21, 1989 and affirm the district court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.