Anderson

MEMORANDUM *

Damone Anderson appeals the partial denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus based on ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing. The state cross-appeals the judgment to the extent that Anderson’s petition was granted on Eighth Amendment grounds. Because Anderson’s petition is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty *258 Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1), we consider only whether the state court’s decision is contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the United States Supreme Court. See Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 , 123 S.Ct. 1166, 1172 , 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003). Applying this standard, we affirm the district court’s ruling on the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, but reverse its determination that the sentence was cruel and unusual punishment.

I

The state superior court did not rule contrary to clearly established federal law in declining to presume prejudice. Even if we assume that counsel’s performance was deficient, he nevertheless achieved some sentencing benefits for Anderson. Therefore, United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 , 104 S.Ct. 2039 , 80…