Nicholas Eugene Landsiedel v. SHANE RANSOME, Community Corrections Officer 2

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NICHOLAS EUGENE LANDSIEDEL,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
SHANE RANSOME, Community
Corrections Officer 2, and RICHARD
MORGAN, Secretary of Corrections,
Respondents-Appellees.
No. 18-35380
D.C. No. 2:16-cv-01421-RAJ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 12, 2019**
Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Washington state prisoner Nicholas Eugene Landsiedel appeals pro se from
the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging
his conviction for attempted rape of a child in the second degree and
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
MAR 19 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-35380
communicating with a minor for immoral purposes. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 2253. Reviewing de novo, see Hurles v. Ryan, 752 F.3d 768, 777 (9th
Cir. 2014), we affirm.
Landsiedel contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by
failing to communicate a plea offer extended by the State and to advise him
adequately about another plea offer. The Washington Court of Appeals concluded
that, even if defense counsel’s performance were deficient, Landsiedel failed to
demonstrate that he suffered prejudice as a result of the deficient performance. See
Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156, 164 (2012) (to establish prejudice, defendant must
show a reasonable probability that he “would have accepted the plea and the
prosecution would not have withdrawn it . . ., that the court would have accepted
its terms, and that the conviction or sentence, or both, under the offer’s terms
would have been less severe than under the judgment and sentence that in fact
were imposed”). The state court’s determination was not contrary to, nor an
unreasonable application of, Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). See
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
To the extent Landsiedel briefed issues beyond the certificate of
appealability (“COA”), we treat his briefing as a request to expand the COA and
deny it. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.
1999).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-35380
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --