Case Name: Mikhail KHAIMCHAYEV, Petitioner-Appellant, v. A. HEDGPETH, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-27
Citations: 401 F. App'x 258
Docket Number: No. 08-56563
Parties: Mikhail KHAIMCHAYEV, Petitioner-Appellant, v. A. HEDGPETH, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 401
Pages: 258–258

Head Matter:
Mikhail KHAIMCHAYEV, Petitioner-Appellant, v. A. HEDGPETH, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-56563.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
Filed Oct. 27, 2010.
Marilee Marshall, Marilee Marshall & Associates, Inc., Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Herbert S. Tetef, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for RespondentAppellee.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Mikhail Khaimchayev appeals from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Khaimchayev contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present certain psychiatric and lay evidence regarding his mental condition. This contention is belied by the record. Counsel presented a defense that Khaimchayev's mental state precluded him from acting with the requisite premeditation and deliberation necessary to support a conviction for first-degree murder. Counsel's decision was an exercise of sound trial strategy and did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness. See Williams v. Woodford, 384 F.3d 567, 610-611 (9th Cir.2004). Accordingly, the state court's decision rejecting Khaimchayev's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was not contrary to, and did not involve an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; nor was it an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.