Hagen

MEMORANDUM *

We are presented with cross appeals from the district court’s partial grant and partial denial of habeas relief to Bruce Holte Hagen. We uphold the partial denial and reverse the partial grant. We review Hagen’s petition under the provisions of Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”). Under AEDPA, a federal court may grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus with respect to a claim *376 adjudicated on the merits in state court only if the state court’s ruling “resulted in a decision that was 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 in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). We look to “the last reasoned decision of the state court as the basis of the state court’s judgment.” Franklin v. Johnson, 290 F.3d 1223 , 1233 n. 3 (9th Cir.2002).

I.

A.

Hagen’s contention that he is entitled to habeas relief is based on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).…