Hans

MEMORANDUM **

Appellant Kristofor Hans, a Montana state prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and we affirm the district court’s denial of Hans’ petition.

Hans argues that the Montana Supreme Court unreasonably applied Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), when it considered his claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. See Hans v. State, 283 Mont. 379 , 942 P.2d 674 (1997). Hans’ petition is subject to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). We may grant Hans’ petition only if the state court’s 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). We hold that the Montana Supreme Court did not apply Strickland in an objectively unreasonable manner.

*333 I.

Hans argues that his trial counsel gave him incorrect information about the definition of mitigated deliberate homicide under Montana law. Hans’ trial counsel mistakenly explained…