Keith Ingram v. Jeff Premo

MEMORANDUM

Oregon state prisoner Keith Ingram appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and affirm.

Ingram challenges his conviction for first-degree kidnapping. He contends his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move’ for a judgment of acquittal. He asserts that the evidence introduced at trial did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had the intent to interfere substantially with the alleged victim’s personal liberty. Had his counsel moved for acquittal, he argues, there was a reasonable probability that the motion would have been granted.

I

As a preliminary matter we address Ap-pellee’s assertion that Ingram’s claim is procedurally defaulted. Oregon law requires prisoners seeking collateral relief to state any grounds for relief in a postcon-viction petition. Or.Rev.Stat. § 138.550(3). Ingram did not raise the ineffective-assistance claim at issue here in his petition for postconviction relief. Nevertheless, the Oregon postconviction trial court denied Ingram’s claim on the merits. The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion, and the Oregon…