Valle
Valle v. Rollins
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Arizona state prisoner Isaac Steven Valle appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his conviction for murder and attempted murder. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , we review de novo, and affirm.
The district court issued a certificate of appealability on the issue of timeliness as well as the merits of Valle’s 2254 habeas petition. Even assuming timeliness, we agree with the district court’s determination on the merits.
Valle contends that his trial attorney rendered ineffective assistance first by failing to present impeachment witnesses regarding the identity of the shooter, second by failing to impeach Robert Aparcio who had, at trial, identified from a photo line-up, someone other than Valle as the shooter, and third by preventing him from “answering jury questions.” Valle also claims ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. For Valle to succeed, he must demonstrate: (1) that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) that he was prejudiced thereby. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).