Rolando Solis v. J. Yates

MEMORANDUM

Rolando Solis appeals from the district court’s order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He claims ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

1. The district court agreed with the California Court of Appeal that counsel performed deficiently by failing to clarify in his closing argument the difference between excuse and mitigation to manslaughter. The district court also held that the Court of Appeal did not unreasonably apply Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), in concluding that counsel’s deficient performance did not result in prejudice to Solis. We need not address the first holding, because we agree with the second. The trial court gave separate, adequate instructions on excuse and mitigation. The Court of Appeal assumed the jury obeyed these instructions and, based on its review of the trial record, concluded that there was no reasonable probability that counsel’s failure to explain the difference between excuse and mitigation affected the verdict. This conclusion does not represent an unreasonable application of Strickland. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d); Harrington v. Richter, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 770, 785 ,…