Francis Lee Smith v. Manfred F. Maass

97 F.3d 1461 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Francis Lee SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Manfred F. MAASS, Respondent-Appellee. No. 95-35774. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Sept. 16, 1996. * Decided Sept. 25, 1996. Before: ALDISERT, ** PREGERSON, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM *** 2 Since the parties are familiar with the facts, we need not recite them here. 3 Counts I and VI were alleged to have occurred between May 15, 1986, and August 9, 1986. The second trial involved Counts II and VII, which allegedly occurred between November 1, 1985, and December 15, 1985. Thus, Smith was never exposed to double jeopardy for the same offense or prosecuted twice for different offenses based upon the same criminal episode. 4 Smith fails to show how he was prejudiced by the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984). Smith's trial counsel exercised reasonable professional…