Haynes

MEMORANDUM **

To prevail on his federal habeas corpus claim, Haynes must demonstrate that the state court’s decision denying his ineffective assistance of counsel claim involved an “unreasonable application” of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1); Weighall v. Middle, 215 F.3d 1058, 1061-62 (9th Cir.2000).

Haynes was required to demonstrate both that his attorney’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that this defective performance actually prejudiced him. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 . Under the prejudice prong, Haynes is required to show a “reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id. at 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 . That means “a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id.

Relief is not available if the state court’s determination was merely incorrect; rather, the state court’s application of Strickland’s prejudice prong must have been objectively unreasonable. Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 68 , 75, 123 S.Ct. 1166 , 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003). It was not. The…