Abelardo Chaparro v. Ivan Bartos

MEMORANDUM

Abelardo Chaparro appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We affirm.

(1) Chaparro asserts that the district court erred in denying relief on his claim regarding an ambiguous self-defense instruction. The state court determined that even if counsel unreasonably offered an ambiguous self-defense instruction, there was no prejudice; it pointed out that a closely following instruction clarified that ambiguity. Moreover, both the state court and the district court noted that substantial (indeed overwhelming) evidence weighed against the self-defense claim. We are unable to say that the state court’s determination was unreasonable. See Harrington v. Richter, — U.S. -, -, 131 S.Ct. 770, 785-86 , 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011). The district court did not err.

(2) Chaparro then asserts that the district court erred in denying relief on his claim regarding excluded evidence. The state court determined that even if counsel’s performance was deficient in failing to obtain admission of excluded testimony of a witness, there was no prejudice within the meaning of Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. at 2068; it pointed to…