Frantz

MEMORANDUM

Karl Adolph Frantz appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his conviction by a jury for attempted armed robbery. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo the district court’s denial of a habeas petition, Gill v. Ayers, 342 F.3d 911, 917 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm as to the issues here covered.

Frantz contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations in violation of the Sixth Amendment because his attorney failed to investigate the state’s allegation that he committed the instant offense while on probation for a Florida offense. We disagree. Frantz failed to show that his counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, or that any deficient performance caused prejudice. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The state court’s decision rejecting Frantz’s claim therefore was not “contrary to, or ... an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1).

Frantz’s contention that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to prepare his defense in…