Eckstrom

MEMORANDUM **

Carl Anders Eckstrom, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his first degree murder convictions in Los Angeles County. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . Reviewing de novo, see Mayfield v. Woodford, 270 F.3d 915, 922 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc) (stating that ineffective assistance of counsel claims raised in habeas petitions filed prior to the enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act are reviewed de novo), we affirm.

Eckstrom’s counsel offered a sufficiency of the evidence defense pursuant People v. Anderson, 70 Cal.2d 15 , 73 Cal.Rptr. 550 , *764 447 P.2d 942 (Cal.1968) (in banc), and an insanity defense in a bifurcated court trial. Eckstrom contends that his counsel should have presented a diminished capacity defense, in addition to the Anderson defense, during the guilt phase of his trial. Eck-strom has not shown, however, that his counsel’s failure to do so was the result of incompetence or inadequate preparation. See Murtishaw v. Woodford, 255 F.3d 926, 939 (9th Cir.2001) (stating that petitioner “bears the heavy burden of proving that counsel’s assistance was…