Strong

Strong v. Guirbino

Good Law
172 F. App'x 150
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 1, 2006No. 05-55122California448 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Donald Strong was convicted of battery with serious bodily injury under section 243(d) of the California Penal Code after he hit Mark Martin with an aluminum baseball bat during an argument over a basketball game. He sought a grant of habeas corpus, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. The district court denied the petition and we affirm, concluding that the state court proffered reasonable findings of fact and a reasonable application of clearly established Federal law as required under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d) (2000).

Strong claims that his counsel was ineffective because he failed to call certain witnesses, stipulated to the victim’s injuries, and did not object during the prosecution’s closing argument. We hold that all of trial counsel’s actions were reasonable, and fall well within the “the wide latitude counsel must have in making tactical decisions.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Contrary to Strong’s claims, the witnesses’ pretrial interviews affirm that the two men could not bolster, and might in fact harm,…

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.