Ruby Lee Myers v. William Duncan, Warden Attorney General for the State of California

50 F.3d 15 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Ruby Lee MYERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William DUNCAN, Warden; Attorney General for the State of California, Respondents-Appellees. No. 94-55650. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted March 7, 1995. * Decided March 17, 1995. 1 Before: SCHROEDER and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges, and KING, District Judge. ** 2 MEMORANDUM *** 3 Ruby Lee Myers appeals the dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 . He argues that his conviction was invalid due to ineffective assistance of counsel. The facts do not support that claim, so we affirm the denial of his petition. 4 "The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result." Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984). We indulge a "strong presumption"…