Preston Hall v. George W. Sumner

Preston Hall appeals the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . In the district court, he pointed to ten separate instances of conduct by his trial attorney that he believed showed ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied his petition without a hearing.

On appeal, Hall limits his ineffective assistance claim to trial counsel’s failure to investigate various aspects of the case, and counsel’s failure to pursue diminished capacity and insanity defenses. Hall contends that the failures in those areas were the result of counsel’s general unpreparedness for trial. As a result, he asserts that the district court misapplied the prejudice requirement set out in Cooper v. Fitzharris, 586 F.2d 1325, 1331-33 (9th Cir. 1978) (en banc), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 974 , 99 S.Ct. 1542 , 59 L.Ed.2d 793 (1979). Cooper states that “[w]hen the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel rests upon specific acts and omissions of counsel at trial ... relief will be granted only if it appears that the defendant was prejudiced by counsel’s conduct.” Id. at 1331 (emphasis added).

Hall’s allegations of ineffective assistance are not supported by the…