T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2).

T he H onor abl e R obe rtJ . T i m l i n, U ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJ udge f orthe ** * C e ntr a l D i s tr i c tof

C a l i f orni a , s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T B R AN DO N S . S MI T HS ON , P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. GU Y H ALL, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 07- 36071 D . C. N o . CV - 0 5 - 0 0 4 6 7 - J M ST ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

O r e gon M i c ha e l W . M os m a n, U ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng

S ubm i tt e d J une 11, 2010 ** P ort l a nd, O r e gon B e f or e : T H O M P S O N a nd M c K E O W N , C i r c ui tJ udge s , a nd T I M L I N , S e ni or D i stri ctJudg e. *** 

# FI LED JU N 14 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

B r a ndon S . S m i ths on, a n O r e gon s t a t e pr i s one r , appe a l s the de ni a l of hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2254 habe a s pe t i t i on c ha l l e ngi ng hi s c onvi c t i on by gui l typl e aa nd s e nt e nc e t o 320 m onths i m pr i s onm e ntf orthe r ape , s odom y , s e xua l abus e , a nd att em pt ed aggravat ed m urder of tw o g i rl s he w as baby-s i tt i ng . S m i thson ar gu es th a t tr ia l c o u n s e l r e n d e r e d in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e b yf

a ilin g to a tte n d o rc a n c e l h is ps y c hos e xua l e va l ua t i on w he n S m i ths on t ol d hi m tha the i nt e nde d t o m a ke i nc r i m i na t i ng s t a t e m e nt s t o the ps y c hol ogi s t . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d § 2 2 5 3 a n d a f f i rm. A s a n in itia l m a tte r , th e S ta te a r g u e s th a t S m ith s o n f a ile d to e x h au s t h is i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e c l a i m a nd tha ti ti s now pr oc e dur a l l yde f aul t e d. W e do not r e a c h thi s i s s ue , butr e s ol ve thi s c a s e on the m e r i t s of S m i ths on’ s i ne f

f e c t i ve as si st ance cl ai m . S ee 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(b)(2). T he s t a t e pos t - c onvi c t i on c ourt ’ s de ni a l of S m i ths on’ s pos t - c onvi c t i on pe t i t i on w a s not“ c ontr a ryt o, ora n unr e a s onabl e appl i c a t i on of ” the s t a nda r d f

or e f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e c l a i m s e s t abl i s he d i n S tr i c kl a nd v. W a s hi ngt on, 466 U . S . 668 (198 4). 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(d)(1). A s the di stri ctcourtfoun d, tri al coun se l ’ s a dv i ce thatS m i thson un dergo the eval uat i on bu tno tdi sc l ose t o the psyc ho l og i stor an a tt e nda ntpol y gr aphe ra nyi nf orm a t i on r e ga r di ng unc ha r ge d c r i m i na l c onduc tby hi m w a s notde f

i c i e nt . I f S m i ths on ha d f

ol l ow e d c ouns e l ’ s a dvi c e , he w oul d ha ve3

r e c e i ve d as e nt e nc e of

no m or e tha n 275 m onths , e ve n i f the di s tr i c ta tt orne ym a de no c onc e s s i on ba s e d on S m i ths on’ s pl e a . H a d he r e c e i ve d af a vor abl e e va l ua t i on, h e m ig h t h a v e b e e n ab le to n e g o tia te ab e tte rp le ao f f e r . I t w a s th e r e f

o r e e n tir e ly r e a s o n ab le f

o rc o u n s e l to a d v is e S m ith s o n to s u b m it to th e e v a lu a tio n b u t w ith h o ld i nf orm a t i on r e ga r di ng hi s othe rc r i m e s . I n a ddi t i on, a s the di s tr i c tc ourtf ound,

“ [i ] tw as no tcoun se l ’ s a dv i ce thatcaused prej ud i ce t o [S m i thson ] ; i nst ea d, i tw as pet i t i on er ’ s vol un t ary c on fe ss i on w hi ch occurre d d es pi t e c ou nsel ’ s a dv i ce . ” T he a tt orne y ’ s de c i s i on nott o c a nc e l the e va l ua t i on w a s as tr a t e gyc a l l , a nd notobj e c t i ve l yde f

i c i e ntpe r f

orm a nc e . S e e S tr i c kl a nd, 466 U . S . a t689 ( r e qui r i ng

“ as tr ong pr e s um pt i on tha tc ouns e l ’ s c onduc tf a l l s w i thi n the w i de r a nge of r e a s o n ab le p r o f

e s s io n a l a s s is ta n c e ” ) . A n d e v e n a s s u m in g th a t c o u n s e l’s f a ilu r e to b e p r e s e n t w ith S m ith s o n a t th e e v a lu a tio n w a s o b je c tiv e lyu n r e a s o n ab le , h is abse nce di d n otcause S m i thson prej ud i ce . A s the di stri ctcourtfoun d, gi ven that S m i ths on’ s c onf

e s s i on w a s vol unt a ry , “ [ w ] he the rc ouns e l ’ s a tt e nda nc e a tthe p s y c h o s e x u a l e v a lu a tio n w o u ld h a v e r e s u lte d in n o c o n f e s s io n is p u r e s p e c u la tio n .”

AF F I RME D.