McCollum

MEMORANDUM *

The state court’s determination that there was sufficient evidence to support McCollum’s second-degree murder conviction was not “contrary to,” or “an unreasonable application of,” Supreme Court precedent. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). Although the state court did not cite Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), it applied the test enunciated therein and thus its decision was not contrary to Supreme Court precedent. See Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 8 , 123 S.Ct. 362 , 154 L.Ed.2d 263 (2002) (per curiam). The state court’s decision that a rational jury could have found malice beyond a reasonable doubt was reasonable, given the eyewitness testimony of Grate and Banks.

Similarly, the state court’s rejection of McCollum’s three claims of ineffective assistance of counsel was not contrary to nor an unreasonable application of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), which was cited and relied on by the state court. The state court did not apply Strickland’s deficiency prong on the first two claims, but “there is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assistance claim ... to address both…