Mary Wheeler v. Tina Hornbeck

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Mary Ashley Wheeler appeals the district court’s denial of her petition for a writ of habeas corpus, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . She argues that the California state court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law by denying her habeas petition. Her petition is based on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

The state court reasonably applied Strickland in concluding that the performance of Wheeler’s counsel was not deficient. Wheeler has produced no evidence to overcome the presumption that her counsel adequately considered alternative defense strategies before opting for the one used at trial. See Matylinsky v. Budge, 577 F.3d 1083, 1091-92 (2009). Among other reasons, that is why Elmore v. Ozmint, 661 F.3d 783 (4th Cir.2011), is distinguishable. Moreover, “[a]n attorney need not pursue an investigation that would be fruitless, much less one that might be harmful to the defense.” Harrington v. Richter, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 770, 789-90 , 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011). Applying the “doubly” deferential standard for Strickland claims under AEDPA review, id.…