Ronald Johnson v. JEAN HILL, Superintendent

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONALD JOHNSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JEAN HILL, Superintendent,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 09-35709
D.C. No. 1:07-cv-00872-PA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Owen M. Panner, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 10, 2010 **
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Oregon state prisoner Ronald Johnson appeals from the district court’s
judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his jury-trial
FILED
AUG 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-35709 2
conviction for attempted aggravated murder. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253, and we affirm.
Johnson contends that his counsel on direct appeal was ineffective because
he failed to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence at trial. After an independent
review of the record, we determine that the Oregon courts’ determination that
counsel was not ineffective was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of,
clearly established Supreme Court case law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also
Smith v. Murray, 477 U.S. 527, 536 (1986) (“This process of winnowing out
weaker arguments on appeal and focusing on those more likely to prevail, far from
being evidence of incompetence, is the hallmark of effective appellate advocacy.”)
(quotation marks omitted).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --