Brown

Paul Anthony Brown appeals from the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 22 U.S.C. § 2254 and the denial of his request for an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

I

Brown claims that his trial counsel, Arlene West, was ineffective because she failed adequately to investigate potential witness King McCarthy and to ask the trial court to enforce a subpoena against McCarthy. This claim was addressed by the California Court of Appeal. Brown’s new evidence is not clear and convincing, and so the state court’s factual determinations are entitled to deference. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (e)(1). Because strategic choices by counsel enjoy wide latitude, the state court’s determination that West competently represented Brown was not based on an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d).

Brown’s other ineffectiveness claims were not explicitly addressed by the California Supreme Court’s denial of Brown’s habeas petition. We have reviewed the record independently to determine whether the state court erred in its application of federal law. Delgado v. Lewis, 223 F.3d 976, 982 (9th Cir.2000).

Brown claims that West: (1) failed to investigate…