Anthony Mizner v. Randy Grounds

MEMORANDUM

Anthony Robert Mizner appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, we must deny habeas relief unless Mizner demonstrates that the state court’s decision on the merits “ “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or ... was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.’ ” Runningeagle v. Ryan, 686 F.3d 758, 766 (9th Cir.2012) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)).

The California Court of Appeal’s denial of Mizner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim was not unreasonable or contrary to federal law. Even if we assume that Mizner’s counsel committed unprofessional error in failing to move the trial court to reduce Mizner’s felony conviction to a misdemeanor pursuant to Section 17(b) of the California Penal Code so as to avoid application of California’s “Three Strikes” law, Cal. PemCode § 667(b)-(i), Mizner…