Culley

MEMORANDUM *

Ronald Culley appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . He asserts that his trial counsel was ineffec *165 tive for failing to object to his exclusion from a pre-trial hearing held to determine the admissibility of the victim’s prior sexual conduct (the “Rape Shield hearing”). We have jurisdiction to consider this petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

In order to establish a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must demonstrate that: 1) his trial counsel’s performance was deficient; and 2) he was prejudiced. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-690 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); United States v. Fry, 322 F.3d 1198, 1200 (9th Cir.2003). In evaluating the prejudice prong, Culley must show that there is a “reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 . The court need not determine whether counsel’s conduct was deficient if the petitioner fails to show that he was prejudiced. Id. at 697 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 .

Culley’s defense was that the…