Anthony Bravo v. Randy Grounds
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
The district court properly denied California state prisoner Anthony Bravo’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, 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).
I.
“When more than one state court has adjudicated a claim, we analyze the last reasoned decision.” Barker v. Fleming, 428 F.3d 1085, 1091 (9th Cir.2005). An exception to this rule arises when “the last reasoned decision adopted or substantially incorporated the reasoning from a previous decision.” Id. at 1093 . That exception does not apply here where the California Court of Appeal did not discuss or reference the opinion of the Superior Court.
II.
The Court of Appeal’s 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). By omitting the language regarding a “reasonable probability,” the Court of Appeal impermissibly held Petitioner to a heightened standard on the prejudice prong of the Strickland inquiry. See 466 U.S. at 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 .