Landry

Landry v. Lindsey

Good Law
8 F. App'x 650
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 18, 2001No. 99-17493; D.C. No. CV-97-20374-RMWCalifornia270 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Jacques Landry appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his convictions for rape, forcible oral copulation, use of a firearm and supplying narcotics to a minor. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo the denial of a section 2254 petition, Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir.1999), and we affirm.

*651 Landry contends that trial counsel’s concessions in her closing statement that Landry both engaged in sexual acts with the victim and provided the victim with narcotics constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. Although counsel conceded some guilt and recommended that the jury consider the lesser included offense of statutory rape, we cannot, in light of the substantial evidence against Landry and his impeached testimony at trial, conclude that such an approach was outside the range of sound trial strategy. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); cf. Harris v. Wood, 64 F.3d 1432 , 1437-38 (9th Cir.1995) (counsel’s closing arguments were “beyond any discernible trial strategy, and were outrageous”).

•Because the state court’s…

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.