Mills

Mills v. Hill

Good Law
216 F. App'x 640
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 29, 2006No. 06-35139California461 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Petitioner Richard Jack Mills appeals the district court’s judgment denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Mills was convicted in Oregon state court following a jury trial for Assault in the First Degree and sentenced to a ninety-month prison term followed by three years of post-prison supervision. Following unsuccessful appeals on both direct and collateral review in state court, Mills filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. The district court denied habeas relief and certified one issue for appeal, namely whether Mills’s trial counsel was ineffective. We decline to grant Mills’s motion to consider the uncertified issue as it lacks merit. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and affirm.

As the parties are familiar with the facts, procedural history, and arguments, we will not recount them here. Mills fails to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel under the familiar framework of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The record belies Mills’s assertion that trial counsel failed adequately to voir dire a juror and to conduct a…

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.