Villegas

MEMORANDUM *

Luis D. Villegas appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas petition, claim *94 ing that the state Court of Appeal’s conclusion that he was not prejudiced by his counsel’s deficient performance was objectively unreasonable. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we reverse.

Federal courts may grant habeas relief if the state court’s adjudication of the claim “was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law ... [or] that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). Moreover, when a state court fails to correctly “identify] the governing legal rule,” Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 75 , 123 S.Ct. 1166 , 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003), we need not defer to the state court’s resulting determination. See Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 395-99 , 120 S.Ct. 1495 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000) (conducting a de novo review of the state court’s prejudice determination after noting that the state court mischaracterized the appropriate legal rule); Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F.3d 992, 1001 (9th Cir.2004) (“Obviously, where the state…