Moore

Johnson v. Moore

Good Law
113 F. App'x 249
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 10, 2004No. 03-35441California258 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

The right to effective assistance of counsel is denied when a defense attorney’s performance falls below an objective standard of reasonableness and thereby prejudices the defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). There can be no viable ineffective assistance of counsel claim for failure to object to a proper jury instruction. See United States v. Oplinger, 150 F.3d 1061, 1072 (9th Cir.1998). The state court determined that the Washington “aggressor” jury instruction neither misstated the law under the facts of Johnson’s case nor prejudiced Johnson. The court therefore rejected Johnson’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim premised on his counsel’s failure to object to the “aggressor” jury instruction.

Alleged errors in state court jury instructions do not provide a basis for federal habeas relief unless the instructions infect the entire trial such that due process has been denied. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 71-72 , 112 S.Ct. 475 , 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991). The record establishes that the jury instruction did not prejudice Johnson by depriving him of a self-defense theory. Johnson testified that he was…

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.