Graham De-Luis-Conti v. M. Evans

MEMORANDUM

Graham Roger-Lee De-Luis-Conti appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Conti challenges several state court convictions, claiming that he was denied effective assistance of counsel and that insufficient evidence supported his conviction under California Penal Code sections 269(a)(5) and 289(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2258 (a). We affirm.

We review de novo the district court’s denial of a habeas corpus petition. See, e.g., Ali v. Hickman, 584 F.3d 1174, 1181 (9th Cir.2009) (citing Juan H. v. Allen, 408 F.3d 1262 , 1269 n. 7 (9th Cir.2005)). This case is governed by AEDPA. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . Under § 2254(d), we review whether the last state court decision on the merits:

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d).

Once we have conducted an intrinsic review of the state court’s fact finding process, “the state court’s findings are dressed in a presumption of correctness, which then helps steel them against any challenge based on extrinsic evidence, i.e., evidence presented for the first time in federal court.” Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F.3d 992, 1000 (9th Cir.2004). Extrinsic evidence is sufficient to overturn the state court’s fact-finding “only if…