Gary McKinley v. Robert Legrand

MEMORANDUM

Gary McKinley, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In his petition, McKinley challenges his convictions for sexual assault. As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review the district court’s decision de novo, Lopez v. Thompson, 202 F.3d 1110, 1116 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc), and we affirm.

1. McKinley first argues that his counsel was ineffective for not appealing the Nevada state district court’s denial of the motion for new trial. Assuming, without deciding, that clearly established federal law extends the right to counsel to this context, the Nevada Supreme Court reasonably applied Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), in holding that “even if counsel’s performance was -deficient ... it did not result in prejudice.” More specifically, it was not “objectively unreasonable in light of the evidence presented in the state-court proceeding,” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 340 , 123 S.Ct. 1029 , 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003), for the Supreme Court of Nevada to conclude…