Mirzayance
Mirzayance v. Hickman
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Alexandre Mirzayance appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions to hold an evidentiary hearing on the ineffective assistance of counsel claim for abandonment of the not guilty by reason of insanity (“insanity”) defense.
Our review is de novo. Wade v. Terhune, 202 F.3d 1190, 1194 (9th Cir.2000). The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), Pub.L. No. 104-132, applies because the petition for a writ of habeas corpus was filed on February 9, 2000. See Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir.2001) (noting that AEDPA applies to petitions filed after April-24,1996). Under AEDPA:
28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). A habeas petitioner alleging ineffective assistance of counsel under § 2254(d)’s “unreasonable application” clause must show that “the state court applied Strickland to the facts of his case in an objectively unreasonable manner.” Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19 , 123 S.Ct. 357, 360 , 154 L.Ed.2d 279 (2002) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)). Strickland holds that counsel is…