Juliette McShane v. Heidi Steward ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 30 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JULIETTE MARIE McSHANE, No. 13-35116
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:08-cv-01443-MO
v.
MEMORANDUM*
HEIDI R. STEWARD, Superintendent,
Coffee Creek Correctional Facility
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 23, 2014**
Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Oregon state prisoner Juliette Marie McShane appeals from the district
court’s judgment denying her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo a district court’s denial of
*
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).
a habeas corpus petition, see Stanley v. Cullen, 633 F.3d 852, 859 (9th Cir. 2011),
and we affirm.
McShane contends that her trial counsel was constitutionally deficient in
failing to advise her that the charge of attempted aggravated murder required the
state to prove that she personally and intentionally attempted to kill the victim.
She further contends that, had trial counsel so advised her, she would have
proceeded to a jury trial rather than enter into her plea agreement. The record
reflects that trial counsel advised McShane that the state would have to prove that
she intended to kill the victim. Accordingly, the state court’s conclusion that
counsel was not constitutionally deficient was neither contrary to, nor an
unreasonable application of, Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). See
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770, 788 (2011) (“When
§ 2254(d) applies, the question . . . is whether there is any reasonable argument that
counsel satisfied Strickland’s deferential standard.”).
AFFIRMED.
2 13-35116