Case ID: f-appx_191/html/0581-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Richard Earl ODEN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Matthew C. KRAMER, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
    No. 05-16155.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 24, 2006.
    
    Filed July 26, 2006.
    Richard Earl Oden, COSP-SATF California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, Corcoran, CA, Fay Arfa, Esq., Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    David A. Rhodes, AGCA—Office of the California Attorney General, Department of Justice, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and BERTELSMAN, Senior Judge.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable William O. Bertelsman, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Richard Oden appeals from the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus and request for an evidentiary hearing. He claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for not putting on a mental health defense. We affirm.

Nothing in the record suggests that Oden’s use of prescribed seizure medication left him intoxicated on the day of the shooting or rendered his confession involuntary. Nor was there any reason for his counsel to believe that Oden suffered from a major mental defect or disorder, especially in light of the findings of the two court-appointed psychiatrists. Although he now takes issue with those findings, Oden does not specify—and we fail to see—how the medical records that he submitted cast doubt on their accuracy.

Under the circumstances, the decision to pursue a different trial strategy—that the shooting was accidental—does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Indeed, that Oden was convicted of attempted voluntary manslaughter instead of attempted murder evidences highly effective representation given the facts of the case. For all these reasons, Oden’s claim under the ADA also fails.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.