Yount
Yount v. Maddock
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Philip M. Yount appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his 1990 convictions by jury trial for first degree murder, first degree burglary and first degree robbery. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo a district court’s denial of a habeas petition, Mur-tishaw v. Woodford, 255 F.3d 926, 939 (9th Cir.2001), cert, denied, —■ U.S.-, 122 S.Ct. 1313 , 152 L.Ed.2d 222 (2002), and we affirm.
Yount contends he received ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel because trial counsel failed to investigate DNA evidence and agreed to waive confidentiality of the results, and appellate counsel failed to raise this issue on direct appeal. In light of the strength of the evidence presented at trial and Yount’s failure to show a reasonable likelihood that the DNA tests would have yielded exculpatory evidence, he cannot establish the requisite prejudice. See United States v. Strickland, 466 U.S. 668, 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); see also United States v. Birtle, 792 F.2d 846, 847 (9th Cir.1986) (applying Strickland test to appellate counsel).