Roy Wilkerson v. Sharon Blacketter

MEMORANDUM

Roy Daryl Wilkerson, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his jury conviction for one count of assault in the first degree and two counts of assault in the second degree. Wilkerson seeks relief, alleging trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel when he failed to object to certain remarks made by the prosecutor during closing argument. We review de novo the district court’s denial of a state prisoner’s habeas petition, Parle v. Runnels, 505 F.3d 922, 926 (9th Cir.2007), and we affirm.

1. Remarks applicable to Wilkerson’s self-defense claim.

The Oregon state court’s denial of Wilkerson’s Strickland claim was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, Supreme Court precedent with regard to trial counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s closing statements relating to the location of Wilkerson’s t-shirt. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d) (a federal court may not grant habeas relief unless it concludes that the state court’s adjudication of the claims “(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established…