Davies

MEMORANDUM **

Avon Davies, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo, Alvarado v. Hill, 252 F.3d 1066, 1068 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.

First, Davies contends that the trial court erred by failing to substitute counsel. As a result, he argues that he received ineffective assistance and there were irreconcilable differences because counsel: 1) chose a theory of defense that differed from his preferred theory, 2) refused to obtain a second psychiatric evaluation, and 3) had a conflict of interest. 1 We disagree.

Davies’ contention stems from a disagreement with counsel over trial tactics, and he fails to overcome the presumption that counsel’s decisions were the result of reasonable trial strategies. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689-91 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Davies also fails to demonstrate an actual conflict of interest that adversely affected counsel’s performance. See Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 348-49 , 100 S.Ct. 1708 , 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980). Finally, Davies’ irreconcilable differences arose from…