Theron Hall v. Mark Nooth, 19-35248

Theron Hall, an Oregon state prisoner, appealed the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging trial counsel’s representation.
Hall contended counsel was ineffective for pursuing a guilty except for insanity (GEI) defense (and for how counsel presented it) instead of an intoxication defense.
The habeas review applied Strickland’s two-prong ineffective-assistance test and AEDPA’s deferential standard; the Oregon Supreme Court’s decision was unreasoned, so the Ninth Circuit looked through to the Oregon circuit court’s reasoned denial.
The panel assumed (without deciding) counsel’s performance could be deficient and that claims were not procedurally defaulted, but focused on whether Hall could show Strickland prejudice.
The record contained strong evidence of Hall’s intent to shoot: he announced earlier he would “pop” someone for money, put a gun to Hernandez‑Sanchez’s head, and shot him at point‑blank range; evidence of intoxication was mixed.
The court concluded the state court reasonably found that, even if counsel had been deficient, Hall could not show a reasonable probability of a different outcome and affirmed the denial of habeas relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for pursuing a GEI defense instead of an intoxication defense	Hall: counsel should have pursued intoxication, which might negate intent	State: GEI was a reasonable strategy; intent evidence was strong regardless	Court: Even assuming deficiency, Hall cannot show prejudice
Whether counsel was deficient in how they advanced the GEI defense	Hall: counsel’s presentation of GEI was professionally inadequate	State: tactical choices about defense framing are reasonable trial strategy	Court: Assumed possible deficiency but held no prejudice shown
Whether Hall demonstrated Strickland prejudice (reasonable probability of different result)	Hall: a stronger intoxication defense would likely have changed verdict	State: overwhelming proof of intent (threats, point‑blank shooting) makes different outcome unlikely	Court: No reasonable probability of a different result; prejudice not shown
Whether AEDPA permits federal relief given state-court decision	Hall: state ruling was erroneous and warrants habeas relief	State: state court’s outcome was reasonable under AEDPA; factual record supports it	Court: AEDPA deference applies; state court’s denial was not objectively unreasonable

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two‑prong ineffective‑assistance test)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (prejudice requires a substantial, not merely conceivable, likelihood of different result)
Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011) (AEDPA constrains federal habeas relief on Strickland claims)
Wilson v. Sellers, 138 S. Ct. 1188 (2018) (when highest state court’s decision is unreasoned, federal courts may "look through" to the last reasoned state decision)
Cain v. Chappell, 870 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 2017) (district court’s denial of §2254 reviewed de novo)