Nhut Thanh Vo v. ANTHONY HEDGPETH, Warden

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NHUT THANH VO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ANTHONY HEDGPETH, Warden,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 10-55967
D.C. No. 8:07-cv-01410-JHN-
VBK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Jacqueline H. Nguyen, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 4, 2013**
Pasadena, California
Before: HAWKINS, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Nhut Thanh Vo (“Vo”) appeals the denial of his habeas petition challenging his
state court conviction of murder, attempted murder, assault with a semiautomatic
FILED
MAR 07 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
firearm and street terrorism for the benefit of a criminal gang. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
Vo argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel
failed to object to specific gang expert testimony. We look to the last reasoned state
court decision, here from the California Court of Appeal, in determining whether
relief should be granted. Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 806 (1991).
Applying Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984), the California
Court of Appeal concluded that, although Vo’s lawyer should have objected to the
testimony, he was not prejudiced thereby. In re Vo, No. G035920, 2006 WL 1793713,
at *4 (Cal. Ct. App. June 30, 2006). Considering the strength of the overall case
against Vo, and the peripheral nature of the gang expert testimony, we cannot say that
this determination was an unreasonable application of federal law. Harrington v.
Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770, 786 (2011); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --