David Shaw, Sr. v. Rosanne Campbell; Attorney General of the State of California

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The Honorable James Maxwell Moody, Senior United States District**
Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID SHAW, SR.
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ROSANNE CAMPBELL; ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 09-15405
D.C. No. 2:05cv-01506-MCE-
GGH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 14, 2010
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and MOODY, District
Judge.**
FILED
AUG 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
David Martin Shaw, Sr., a state prisoner, appeals the district court's denial of
his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction by a jury of
kidnaping with intent to commit rape, forcible rape during the commission of a
burglary, attempted murder, assault with intent to commit rape, second degree
burglary, assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury and criminal threats.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo the district
court’s denial of a habeas petition. Gill v. Ayers, 342 F. 3d 911, 917 (9 Cir.th
2003).
Shaw argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel when his trial
counsel failed to present impeachment evidence showing the victim's testimony
was not credible, that her perceptions of the incident were distorted by drug and
alcohol intoxication, and that she engaged in "sex for drugs."
We disagree. Shaw failed to show that his counsel's alleged deficient
performance caused prejudice. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687
(1984). The overwhelming evidence at trial including the physical evidence of the
victim’s injuries support the jury’s findings. The state court's decision rejecting
Shaw’s claim therefore was not “contrary to, or . . . an unreasonable application of,
clearly established Federal law.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --