Johnson v. Arizona Attorney General

MEMORANDUM **

Marquis Lee Johnson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.

Johnson contends that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise on direct appeal the various claims of prosecutorial misconduct and trial court error that he raises in his § 2254 petition. Johnson admits in his petition that counsel told him she had reviewed his suggested claims and found them to be without merit, and Johnson has not demonstrated that any of these claims were viable on direct appeal. Accordingly, Johnson has failed to meet his burden of showing that appellate counsel was deficient for declining to raise his suggested claims on direct appeal, or that he suffered prejudice as a result. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); see also Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 288 , 120 S.Ct. 746 , 145 L.Ed.2d 756 (2000) (noting that the presumption that appellate counsel acted reasonably will generally be overcome only when claims not raised are clearly stronger than those presented). The state court’s…