Willard
Willard v. Alameida
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Petitioner Stephen Paul Willard appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We affirm.
We review a district court’s denial of habeas corpus relief de novo. Luna v. Cambra, 306 F.3d 954, 959 (9th Cir.), amended by 311 F.3d 928 (9th Cir.2002). Because Willard filed his petition after April 24, 1996, it is governed by the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. See Luna, 306 F.3d at 960 .
Willard claims that his trial counsel’s failure to investigate the existence of Alan *461 Peters and subpoena him for trial constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Willard must show that (1) counsel’s performance was deficient and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced his defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
In the last reasoned state court decision, the California Fourth District Court of Appeal held that Willard had not shown that the absence of the alleged alibi testimony prejudiced his defense. The court reasoned: