Hollins

Hollins v. Terhune

Good Law
40 F. App'x 353
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 19, 2002No. 01-55710; D.C. No. CV-00-00373-JNKCalifornia1,090 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

John Bradley Hollins appeals the district court’s order dismissing his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we deny the petition.

I.

Hollins was convicted in the Superior Court of the State of California for assault with a firearm and corporal injury to his longtime girlfriend and mother of his five children. He seeks habeas review on two grounds: ineffective assistance of counsel and violation of his due process rights.

Hollins first claims that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to obtain the testimony of a ballistics expert. We conclude that the failure to call a ballistics expert was neither deficient nor prejudicial. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) (holding that petitioner must demonstrate that his “counsel’s performance was deficient” and “that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense”). Hollins’ attorney concluded that a ballistics expert would be of no benefit to Hollins, basing his conclusion on 22 years of active duty as a U.S. Marine and consequent familiarity with handgun ballistics, his review of the police report, his…

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.