Ezell

MEMORANDUM **

Samuel Ezell appeals the district court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at two state rape trials. 1 Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 , our task is specifically to determine whether the state court’s decision denying relief “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” Alvarado v. Hill, 252 F.3d 1066, 1068 (9th Cir.2001) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Ezell must show 1) that his counsel’s performance was constitutionally deficient and 2) that that deficiency prejudiced him. See Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 390-91 , 120 S.Ct. 1495 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000). Here, Ezell claims that his counsel was deficient both in failing to object to the state’s use of polymerase chain reaction (“PCR”) DNA testing evidence and in failing to hire an independent expert to evaluate the state’s PCR DNA evidence.

If Ezell has not established prejudice, we need not evaluate deficiency. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 697…