Cornell

MEMORANDUM *

State habeas petitioner Barry Michael Cornell appeals from the district court’s denial of the writ. He alleges that his attorney provided constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel at his child molestation trial by failing to object to the prosecution’s elicitation of testimony from the child witnesses through use of their prior consistent statements. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2003), review the district court’s decision de novo, Beardslee v. Woodford, 327 F.3d 799, 806 (9th Cir.2003), and affirm.

I

Although there is a serious question whether Cornell has procedurally defaulted his ineffectiveness claim, his claim fails on the merits and therefore we need not decide whether it is barred. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b)(2) (2003) (“An application for a writ of habeas corpus may be denied on the merits, notwithstanding the failure of the applicant to exhaust the remedies available in the courts of the State.”).

A

Our review of the merits is cabined by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), which allows us to grant a petition for the writ only if the state court’s decision “resulted in a decision that was contrary to,…