Juliette McShane v. Heidi Steward

Good Law
584 F. App'x 836
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 30, 201413-35116California238 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Oregon state prisoner Juliette Marie McShane appeals from the district court’s judgment denying her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo a district court’s denial of a habeas corpus petition, see Stanley v. Cullen, 633 F.3d 852, 859 (9th Cir.2011), and we affirm.

McShane contends that her trial counsel was constitutionally deficient in failing to advise her that the charge of attempted aggravated murder required the state to prove that she personally and intentionally attempted to kill the victim. She further contends that, had trial counsel so advised her, she would have proceeded to a jury trial rather than enter into her plea agreement. The record reflects that trial counsel advised McShane that the state would have to prove that she intended to kill the victim. Accordingly, the state court’s conclusion that counsel was not constitutionally deficient was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1); Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 , 131 S.Ct. 770, 788 , 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011)…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.