Healy
Healy v. Maddock
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Jeffrey Healy appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his sentence imposed following his California convictions for 37 counts of battery and one count of torture. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2253 1 and affirm. Because the parties are *887 aware of the facts, we will not recite them in detail.
We review de novo the district court’s decision to deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus. Eslaminia v. White, 136 F.3d 1234, 1236 (9th Cir.1998). We analyze this ineffective assistance of counsel claim to determine whether the state court’s decision was an unreasonable application of clearly established law. 28 U.S.C. 2254(d); Weighall v. Middle, 215 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir.2000). An unreasonable application of law exists only if the state court clearly erred. Van Tran v. Lindsey, 212 F.3d 1143, 1153-54 (9th Cir.), cert, denied, 531 U.S. 944 , 121 S.Ct. 340 , 148 L.Ed.2d 274 (2000). We first consider whether the state court erred. If the state court erred, we consider whether the error “involved an unreasonable application of controlling law within the meaning of § 2254(d).” Id. at 1155.