ANTHONY TAYLOR v. RON RACKLEY

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Anthony L. Taylor appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. Reviewing the district court’s determination de novo, see Hurles v. Ryan, 752 F.3d 768, 777 (9th Cir.2014), we affirm.

Taylor’s petition is governed by the An-titerrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . To be eligible for habeas relief, Taylor must show that the California courts’ adjudication of his claim “resulted in a decision that 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.” Id. § 2254(d).

Taylor alleges that his plea counsel was ineffective for failing to accurately advise him that the trial court was considering, but not promising, a sentence in the 20- to 22-year range. Under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), a habeas petitioner who alleges ineffective assistance of counsel must show both that counsel was ineffective and that the ineffectiveness…