Grady

MEMORANDUM *

James Grady appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his California convictions for first degree murder and residential robbery. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and review the district court’s denial of the petition for writ of habeas corpus de novo. Fernandez v. Roe, 286 F.3d 1073, 1076 (9th Cir.2002). We cannot grant § 2254 habeas relief unless the underlying state decision is contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established law. 28 U.S.C § 2254. The state court decision must be objectively unreasonable. Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 75 , 123 S.Ct. 1166 , 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003). We affirm.

Grady argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object when the trial court gave CALJIC 4.20, the voluntary intoxication instruction for general intent crimes. The sole issue on appeal is whether the California courts’ holding that Grady has not established prejudice is an unreasonable application of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). To establish prejudice, Grady must establish a reasonable probability that, absent the improper jury…