Ruben Cervantes v. Leland McEwan Acting Warden

MEMORANDUM

Ruben Cervantes, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Cervantes contends that he was denied his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to present the testimony of four potential alibi witnesses at trial. The California Supreme Court rejected this claim on the merits. In order to be entitled to relief, Cervantes must demonstrate that this decision was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1).

The California Supreme Court did not unreasonably apply, or reach a decision contrary to, federal law in summarily denying Cervantes’s claims that his trial counsel, Arlene Binder, was constitutionally deficient for failing to call as witnesses Elisa Corona and Maria Cervantes, and for failing to investigate with respect to Misael Gomez. See Harrington v. Richter, - U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 770, 784-85 , 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011). “A court considering a claim of ineffective assistance must apply a ‘strong presumption’ that counsel’s…