Perez

MEMORANDUM **

Javier Trujillo Perez (“Perez”) seeks a writ of habeas corpus on his first-degree *296 murder conviction. The district court was correct in denying Perez’s petition because the California state court’s decision was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1).

Perez claims that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to argue in closing that because Perez was intoxicated he did not possess the requisite intent for first-degree murder. To prevail, Perez must show that (1) his counsel’s actions were outside the range of professionally competent assistance, and (2) he was prejudiced by his counsel’s actions. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690-93 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Under United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 , 104 S.Ct. 2039 , 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984), prejudice is presumed in cases where “counsel entirely fails to subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing.” Id. at 659 , 104 S.Ct. 2039 . An assessment of prejudice is necessary in this case, however, because counsel’s failure to argue one of Perez’s possible defenses,…