Ronnie Winn v. Anthony Lamarque
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Ronnie Winn appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He makes two ineffective assistance of counsel claims and two claims regarding the trial court’s failure to give jury instructions. We affirm the denial of Winn’s petition.
I.
Winn claims that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to adequately investigate and present exculpatory evidence of the victim’s cause of death. This claim was presented to the California Supreme Court in a habeas petition that was denied without analysis. We therefore “perform an independent review of the record to ascertain whether the state court decision was objectively unreasonable.” Reynoso v. Giurbino, 462 F.3d 1099, 1109 (9th Cir.2006) (internal, quotations omitted). Our inquiry is “whether there is any reasonable argument that counsel satisfied Strickland’s deferential standard.” Harrington v. Richter, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 770, 788 , 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011). We conclude that counsel satisfied Strickland, because Winn has not shown that counsel’s failure to investigate and present evidence regarding the victim’s cause of death was prejudicial. Strickland v. Washington, 466…