Stephen Wong v. Mark Nooth

Ninth Circuit

Stephen Wong v. Mark Nooth

546 F. App'x 621

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 16, 2013

Docket19-16102

StatusUnpublished

This text of 546 F. App'x 621 (Stephen Wong v. Mark Nooth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stephen Wong v. Mark Nooth, 546 F. App'x 621 (9th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

An Oregon state jury convicted Stephen James Wong of six counts arising out of his sexual abuse of his minor stepdaughter. Wong now appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He claims his trial and appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

The state court’s rejection of Wong’s claims was not an “unreasonable application” of Strickland. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Trial counsel was not ineffective for not objecting to Clare Bruch’s testimony or to the State’s use of the term “sex offender” in its examination of Bruch. Trial counsel could reasonably have decided that Bruch was a proper lay witness, see Or.Rev.Stat. § 40.405, and the state court reasonably found that “sex offender” referred not to Wong’s prior conviction but to the allegations at issue at trial.

*623 Wong’s appellate counsel could decline to raise issues he reasonably thought would not succeed on appeal. Moormann v. Ryan, 628 F.3d 1102, 1109-10 (9th Cir.2010). Appellate counsel could reasonably have decided that the trial court was not required to declare a mistrial after Rose Wong’s inadvertent reference to Wong’s prior conviction, see State v. Montez, 309 Or. 564, 789 P.2d 1352, 1372-73 (1990), and that the jury’s alleged discussion of Wong’s prior conviction did not justify interviewing jurors, see State v. Cheney, 171 Or.App. 401, 16 P.3d 1164, 1170-72 (2000).

Wong’s claim of cumulative error fails because he has not shown any individual instance of ineffective assistance. See Mancuso v. Olivarez, 292 F.3d 939, 957 (9th Cir.2002).

Wong’s unopposed motion to file supplemental excerpts of record is granted.

AFFIRMED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM *

An Oregon state jury convicted Stephen James Wong of six counts arising out of his sexual abuse of his minor stepdaughter. Wong now appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He claims his trial and appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

The state court’s rejection of Wong’s claims was not an “unreasonable application” of Strickland. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Trial counsel was not ineffective for not objecting to Clare Bruch’s testimony or to the State’s use of the term “sex offender” in its examination of Bruch. Trial counsel could reasonably have decided that Bruch was a proper lay witness, see Or.Rev.Stat. § 40.405, and the state court reasonably found that “sex offender” referred not to Wong’s prior conviction but to the allegations at issue at trial.

*623 Wong’s appellate counsel could decline to raise issues he reasonably thought would not succeed on appeal. Moormann v. Ryan, 628 F.3d 1102, 1109-10 (9th Cir.2010). Appellate counsel could reasonably have decided that the trial court was not required to declare a mistrial after Rose Wong’s inadvertent reference to Wong’s prior conviction, see State v. Montez, 309 Or. 564, 789 P.2d 1352, 1372-73 (1990), and that the jury’s alleged discussion of Wong’s prior conviction did not justify interviewing jurors, see State v. Cheney, 171 Or.App. 401, 16 P.3d 1164, 1170-72 (2000).

Wong’s claim of cumulative error fails because he has not shown any individual instance of ineffective assistance. See Mancuso v. Olivarez, 292 F.3d 939, 957 (9th Cir.2002).

Wong’s unopposed motion to file supplemental excerpts of record is granted.

AFFIRMED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

546 F. App'x 621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stephen-wong-v-mark-nooth-ca9-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack