Michael Shukry v. M. Evans

MEMORANDUM

Michael James Shukry appeals from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus. We conclude that Shukry’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim does not survive the doubly deferential standard of review applicable to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under AEDPA, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111, 123 , 129 S.Ct. 1411 , 173 L.Ed.2d 251 (2009). Accordingly, we affirm.

Shukry has not shown that the Sacramento Superior Court unreasonably applied Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 691 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), or made an unreasonable determination of the facts of Shukry’s case when it rejected his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Shukry’s trial attorney’s strategic decision to eschew the roof fall version of events as a defense theory was not professionally deficient. It was a reasonable judgment that presenting Shukry’s third version of events would have been unlikely to persuade the jury and would have damaged Shukry’s credibility generally. The defense that counsel presented, though ultimately unsuccessful, was not as implausible as Shukry now asserts. • The…