David Vigil v. Mike McDonald

MEMORANDUM

David Vigil appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

Vigil argues that his trial counsel’s failure to present mitigating evidence at his sentencing hearing was constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel. To succeed with his habeas petition, Vigil must first show that the state court’s denial of habe-as “involved an unreasonable application of[] clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). Vigil claims that Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), establishes the standard by which to evaluate the performance of counsel in noncapital sentencing cases like his own. Id. at 686-87 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 (holding that ineffective assistance of counsel is shown by deficiency in trial counsel’s performance that prejudices the defense).

Strickland , however, only defines the standard to evaluate counsel in capital sentencing cases and according to our case law, since deciding Strickland , “the Supreme Court has not delineated a standard which should apply to…