Martin

*226 MEMORANDUM **

The district court correctly concluded that the Washington Supreme' Court did not unreasonably apply Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), in denying relief on Martin’s habeas claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Martin argues that the Strickland test is inapplicable to his claim and that prejudice should be presumed under United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 , 104 S.Ct. 2039 , 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984). Given the vigorous defense Martin’s counsel raised for the most serious charges, rape and kidnapping, it is not a reasonable reading of Cronic to say that counsel “entirely” failed to subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing by conceding guilt on the least serious charge. Cf. Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 697-98 , 122 S.Ct. 1843 , 152 L.Ed.2d 914 (2002) (failure to adduce mitigating evidence and waiver of closing argument “are plainly of the same ilk as other specific attorney errors we have held subject to Strickland’s performance and prejudice components.”).

Under Strickland , Martin’s defense counsel did not render ineffective assistance of counsel by conceding guilt of the least serious…