Crawford

MEMORANDUM *

Mark Jeffrey Crawford appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. We affirm.

I

Crawford’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails because there is no reasonable probability that the outcome of his trial would have been different had Monique Harmer, Tina Hudson, Michelle Simas, and Paul Crawford testified that Richard Hara lived in Crawford’s apartment and possessed the drugs in the duffel bag found underneath the stairwell, and had the record of Hara’s arrest and conviction for methamphetamine possession been presented to the jury. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Even if the drugs were Hara’s, the jury would still have found Crawford guilty on the basis of constructive possession because he exercised at least joint dominion and control over the drugs with Hara. See Armstrong v. Superior Court, 217 Cal.App.3d 535, 539 , 265 Cal.Rptr. 877 (1990); People v. Valerio, 13 Cal.App.3d 912, 921 , 92 Cal.Rptr. 82 (1970).

II

For the same reason, the state court’s decision that failure to disclose the fact of Hara’s arrest was not material is not contrary to, nor an…