Tin Nguyen v. Roderick Hickman

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Tin Nguyen appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We conclude that the California state court did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law or base its decision on an unreasonable deter mination of the facts in denying Nguyen’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims now on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.

Under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), in order to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a habeas petitioner must show that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. The state court’s determination that Nguyen’s trial counsel made a tactical decision in choosing not to object to the field identification evidence collected during a traffic stop the night before the murder was not “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(2). Although the decision may be called into question in hindsight, Nguyen has failed to provide sufficient evidence to combat the strong presumption that this tactical decision was “within the…