Billy Cochran v. James Tilton

MEMORANDUM

Cochran appeals from the district court’s partial denial of his habeas petition. In his habeas petition, Cochran argued that he was deprived of the counsel guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment because his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress the gun that was admitted into evidence. The facts of the case are known to the parties. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.

We review a district court’s denial of a habeas petition de novo, using the standards set forth in AEDPA. Lopez v. Thompson, 202 F.3d 1110, 1116 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc); see Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 326 , 117 S.Ct. 2059 , 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997). Thus, we may grant habeas relief only if the last reasoned state-court decision was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). Where, as here, there is no reasoned state court decision, we “must determine what arguments or theories ... could have supported ... the state court’s decision; and then [we] must ask whether it is possible fairminded jurists could disagree that…