Case Explained: GRANADOS V. BREITENBACH

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-12 Docket: 3:20-cv-00427-ART-CSD The ninth-circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Richard Granados’ federal habeas corpus petition challenging his state convictions for first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and attempted murder. The court held that the Nevada Supreme Court’s rejection of Granados’ claims was not contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Regarding the sufficiency of the evidence claim, the court applied the standard from *Jackson v. Virginia*, which requires viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine if any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The panel found that the Nevada Supreme Court reasonably concluded that trial testimony regarding Granados’ feud with the victims, his search for them, and his actions immediately before the shooting supported a finding of specific intent to commit murder and negated a claim of self-defense under Nevada law. On the ineffective assistance of counsel claim concerning plea negotiations, the court applied the *Strickland v. Washington* standard, requiring proof that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that there was a reasonable probability the result would have been different had counsel performed adequately. The panel determined that the state court’s application of this test was reasonable given Granados’ admission that his counsel conveyed all plea offers and urged him to accept one, undermining his assertion that he would have accepted a plea but for ineffective assistance. Finally, the court rejected the cumulative error claim, finding no multiple instances of trial error that rendered the proceeding fundamentally unfair under *Parle v. Runnels*. As a result, Granados’ request for relief was denied, and the state convictions remain in effect. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.