Worthan v. Attorney General of Montana

MEMORANDUM

Appellant Kelly Dean Worthan (‘Wor-than”) appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his Montana convictions. This court granted a certificate of appealability as to whether Worthan received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo, see McCormick v. Adams, 621 F.3d 970, 975 (9th Cir.2010), and we affirm.

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), we may grant a habeas writ only if the state court decision is “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” or “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1).

The applicable law in Worthan’s case is Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), which is “clearly established Federal law” under the AEDPA. See Harrington v. Richter, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 770, 785-86 , 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011). “The standards created by Strickland and § 2254(d) are both highly deferential, and when the two…