Joseph Arredondo, Jr. v. Gary Sandor

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Joseph Mario Arredondo, Jr., appeals from the district court’s denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus. After trial in California, Mr. Arredondo was convicted of several counts of committing sexual acts with minors, but he asserts on collateral review that three defects in his state-court proceedings warrant relief from that judgment. The Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1994 (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. § 2241 et seq., strictly circumscribes our jurisdiction to grant a writ of habeas corpus in this case.

First, Mr. Arredondo contends that his trial attorney’s allegedly incompetent performance deprived him of the effective assistance of counsel. To demonstrate constitutionally defective representation, the criminal defendant must show: (1) that his counsel’s performance failed to satisfy an “objective standard of reasonableness”; and (2) that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The California Court of Appeal, which issued the last reasoned…