United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Edward L. Hohn, Esq., Defendant-appellant, 24 F.3d 250 (9th Cir. 1994)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Edward L. Hohn appeals pro se the district court's denial of his habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Hohn alleges that his trial attorneys were ineffective in that they failed to present a defense of diminished mental capacity and to call two potential defense witnesses at trial.

This court reviews de novo the district court's denial of a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Angelone, 894 F.2d 1129, 1130 (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm the district court.

To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that the attorneys' performance was deficient and that the deficiency prejudiced his defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).

The record shows that defense counsel made a reasonable investigation into Hohn's case. Counsel considered and rejected the diminished capacity defense and also decided, as a matter of strategy, not to call the two additional witnesses at trial. These decisions were tactical and fall within the scope of reasonable professional assistance.

Hohn has not shown that his counsels' performance was deficient or that the result of the trial was unreliable. Lockhart v. Fretwell, 113 S. Ct. 838, 844 (1993). Therefore, we affirm the denial of Hohn's habeas petition.