Johnson
v.
Hill

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Page 454Aug 26, 2010
393 Fed. Appx. 453 (9th Cir. 2010)

No. 09-35709.

Submitted August 10, 2010.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed August 26, 2010.

Alison Clark, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Portland, OR, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Harry B. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General, Oregon Department of Justice, Salem, OR, for Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Owen M.

Panner, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 1:07-cv-00872-PA.

Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Oregon state prisoner Ronald Johnson appeals from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his jury-trial conviction for attempted aggravated murder. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Johnson contends that his counsel on direct appeal was ineffective because he failed to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence at trial. After an independent review of the record, we determine that the Oregon courts' determination that counsel was not ineffective was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court case law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Smith v. Murray, 477 U.S. 527, 536, 106 S.Ct. 2661, 91 L.Ed.2d 434 (1986) ("This process of winnowing out weaker arguments on appeal and focusing on those more likely to prevail, far from being evidence of incompetence, is the hallmark of effective appellate advocacy.") (quotation marks omitted).

AFFIRMED.