FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MIKHAIL KHAIMCHAYEV, No. 08-56563
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:03-cv-01262-ODW
v.
MEMORANDUM *
A. HEDGPETH,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Otis D. Wright, II, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 19, 2010 **
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN and BEA, Circuit Judges.
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
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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 (1984).
AFFIRMED.
2 08-56563