Michael Fimbres v. O'Brian Bailey

facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254(d). Under this deferential standard, the writ may be granted only if the

state court’s rejection of the claim on the merits “was so lacking in justification”

that no “fairminded” jurist could agree with it, Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86,

103 (2011), or if it rested on factual findings that “plainly misapprehend[ed] or

misstat[ed] the record; fail[ed] to consider key aspects of the record; [or] ignor[ed]

‘highly probative’ evidence supporting the petitioner’s claim,” McGill v. Shinn,

2 F.4th 666, 685 (9th Cir. 2021) (citations omitted). In applying these standards, we

review “the last reasoned state court decision on the merits” of a petitioner’s

habeas claim. Reis-Campos v. Biter, 832 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir. 2016). Here, that

is the California Court of Appeal’s decision.

A claim of ineffective assistance requires a showing that counsel’s

performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the

defendant. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). The

California Court of Appeal concluded that Fimbres failed to establish either prong

of the…