Essie Simpson, III v. John Marshall

MEMORANDUM

Essie Simpson appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition. Simpson alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to inform him that his guilty plea would require gang registration. We affirm.

We review the district court’s denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus de novo. Blair v. Martel, 645 F.3d 1151 , 1154 n. 1 (9th Cir.2011). Because Simpson’s federal habeas petition was filed after the enactment of AEDPA in 1996, that statute governs his petition. See Woodford v. Garceau, 538 U.S. 202, 210 , 123 S.Ct. 1398 , 155 L.Ed.2d 363 (2003). Simpson’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim was made in his state court petition for habeas corpus, which the Supreme Court of California denied summarily. A summary denial constitutes a denial on the merits for AEDPA purposes. Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 , 131 S.Ct. 770, 784 , 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011). If there is “any reasonable argument” supporting a summary denial, habeas corpus must be denied. Id. at 788.

Under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), the habeas petitioner who alleges ineffective assistance of counsel must show both that…