Morgan

Morgan v. Budge

Good Law
142 F. App'x 306
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 4, 2005No. 05-15145California301 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

*307 MEMORANDUM **

Nevada state prisoner Gerald L. Morgan appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2258 , and we affirm.

Morgan contends that his trial counsel provided constitutionally deficient representation when he failed to do any pretrial investigation, particularly as to evidence relating to the trajectory of the bullet. However, the state trial court held an evidentiary hearing on this and other issues, and, in light of Morgan’s attorney’s testimony as to his investigations and strategies, it was not unreasonable for the state court to find that counsel’s representation was objectively reasonable. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) (recognizing that there are limits on an attorney’s duty to investigate).

Morgan also contends that counsel provided ineffective assistance when he failed to object to certain errors in the presentence report. However, the probation and parole officer who prepared the report testified that, even with the noted corrections, the sentence recommendation would have remained the same. Accordingly, the alleged…

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.