Javiad Akhtar v. Mike Knowles

MEMORANDUM

Javiad Akhtar appeals the denial of his habeas corpus petition. His appeal raises six claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Because we agree with the district court that the state court decision rejecting the claims was not unreasonable, we affirm. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d).

To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, Akhtar must show both that his counsel’s performance “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness” and 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). As to each of his claims, Akhtar has failed to make the necessary showing.

First, Aklitar’s counsel did not render ineffective assistance by failing to challenge the appointment of one instead of two psychiatrists or psychologists because Akhtar was entitled to only one court-appointed psychiatrist or psychologist. Under California law, if a doubt arises in the judge’s mind as to a defendant’s mental competence to stand trial and if the defendant’s counsel informs the court that the defense is not seeking…