United States v. Johnny Williams

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Johnny Williams

656 F. App'x 381

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 29, 2016

Docket15-16143

StatusUnpublished

This text of 656 F. App'x 381 (United States v. Johnny Williams) 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

United States v. Johnny Williams, 656 F. App'x 381 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

On March 11, 2010, a jury found Johnny M. Williams guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), being a Felon in Possession of a Firearm. On June 3, 2010, the district court sentenced Williams to a term of imprisonment of 120 months. Williams timely appealed his conviction and, on September 16, 2011, this court affirmed. United States v. Williams, 450 Fed.Appx. 600 (9th Cir. Sept. 16, 2011). Williams now appeals the *382 district court’s order denying his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the conviction, judgment, and sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

The district court granted a certifícate of appealability as to Appellant’s second claim, which alleged that trial counsel was deficient for not presenting the affirmative defense of “justification.” We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2255(d). We review de novo. See Reynoso v. Giurbino, 462 F.3d 1099, 1108 (9th Cir. 2006).

In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, an appellant must establish both (1) that the assistance of trial counsel was constitutionally deficient, and (2) that deficiency prejudiced the defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). “Failure to make the required showing of either deficient performance or sufficient prejudice defeats the ineffectiveness claim.” Id. at 700, 104 S.Ct. 2052.

Williams asserts that trial counsel was ineffective “where her failure to consider the fact that Williams’ testimony could be construed as admitting constructive possession led her to reject a meritorious justification defense in favor of an implausible lack-of-possession defense.” However, trial counsel articulated a number of strategic reasons for not asserting the affirmative defense of justification.

We conclude that the various strategic reasons for counsel’s decision to forego the justification defense were reasonable. Accordingly, trial counsel’s strategic decision did not deprive Williams of the right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.

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 **

On March 11, 2010, a jury found Johnny M. Williams guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), being a Felon in Possession of a Firearm. On June 3, 2010, the district court sentenced Williams to a term of imprisonment of 120 months. Williams timely appealed his conviction and, on September 16, 2011, this court affirmed. United States v. Williams, 450 Fed.Appx. 600 (9th Cir. Sept. 16, 2011). Williams now appeals the *382 district court’s order denying his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the conviction, judgment, and sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

The district court granted a certifícate of appealability as to Appellant’s second claim, which alleged that trial counsel was deficient for not presenting the affirmative defense of “justification.” We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2255(d). We review de novo. See Reynoso v. Giurbino, 462 F.3d 1099, 1108 (9th Cir. 2006).

In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, an appellant must establish both (1) that the assistance of trial counsel was constitutionally deficient, and (2) that deficiency prejudiced the defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). “Failure to make the required showing of either deficient performance or sufficient prejudice defeats the ineffectiveness claim.” Id. at 700, 104 S.Ct. 2052.

Williams asserts that trial counsel was ineffective “where her failure to consider the fact that Williams’ testimony could be construed as admitting constructive possession led her to reject a meritorious justification defense in favor of an implausible lack-of-possession defense.” However, trial counsel articulated a number of strategic reasons for not asserting the affirmative defense of justification.

We conclude that the various strategic reasons for counsel’s decision to forego the justification defense were reasonable. Accordingly, trial counsel’s strategic decision did not deprive Williams of the right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.

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)

656 F. App'x 381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-johnny-williams-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack