Mason Henry v. United States

MEMORANDUM

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253 to review the denial of Mason James Henry’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas petition. Reviewing the district court’s denial of the habeas petition de novo, United States v. Manzo, 675 F.3d 1204, 1209 (9th Cir.2012), we affirm.

1. Henry’s plea-agreement counsel did not have a duty to investigate Henry’s mental health, because there was no evidence to suggest Henry was impaired. See Doe v. Woodford, 508 F.3d 563, 569 (9th Cir.2007). Counsel’s disclosure to the court that Henry understood the proceedings even though he sometimes took a little longer to process things was insufficient to trigger the duty to investigate Henry’s mental impairment. See id.

Even if counsel were ineffective by not investigating Henry’s mental health, the plea agreement would still be valid. Henry has offered no evidence that an investi gation into his mental health would have changed the outcome of the plea agreement. See Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 , 106 S.Ct. 366 , 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985). Instead, Henry speculates that there might be something in his medical, school, and family records that indicates he is mentally impaired. “Such…