Crawford

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Robert Joe Crawford appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, challenging his conviction and sentence for second degree burglary. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

Crawford contends that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because his attorney: (1) failed to file a motion to suppress or for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the screwdriver found at the crime scene belonged to Crawford; (2) failed to file a “wobbler motion;” (3) failed to file a motion for a new trial; (4) failed to dismiss a biased juror; and (5) failed to adequately investigate the hallways at the crime scene to see if the lights were in working condition. Upon review of the record, we agree with the district court that Crawford has failed to demonstrate either deficient performance by counsel or prejudice. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Crawford next contends that he received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Specifically, Crawford states that his appellate counsel failed to obtain a transcript of the jury…