Steven Rose v. Connie Gipson

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Steven Arnold Rose appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . He argues that the California state court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law by denying his habeas petition, which 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 federal law in denying Rose’s habeas petition. Defense counsel’s decision not to call Tom Clemens as a witness did not prejudice Rose. Introducing Clemens as a witness would have opened the door for the prosecution to introduce Clemens’ damaging pri- or statements to law enforcement, including his statement that Rose threatened to kill Pamela Terrick. Moreover, any testimony Clemens could have offered to support Rose’s defense would have been undermined by his failure to explain how Terrick sustained the kinds of injuries she had when police arrived at the scene. Rose cites Howard v. Clark, but a central reason we found prejudice in Howard was that the prosecution’s ease-in-chief was not very strong. 608 F.3d 563, 573…