Mark Bridges v. Leland McEwen

MEMORANDUM

Mark Bridges, Jr., appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . He seeks to set aside his conviction for first-degree murder and attempted murder on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel (“IAC”).

Bridges has not shown that the state court’s rejection of his IAC claims was “contrary to” or “involved an unreasonable application of’ Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). Because Bridges has not surmounted the “doubly deferential” review applicable when Strickland and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AED-PA”) operate “in tandem,” Walker v. Martel, 709 F.3d 925, 941 (9th Cir.2013) (quoting Harrington v. Richter, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 770, 788 , 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011); Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111, 123 , 129 S.Ct. 1411 , 173 L.Ed.2d 251 (2009)) (internal quotation marks omitted), we affirm the district court’s denial of his petition.

1. Bridges’s IAC claims fall under three headings: 1) counsel’s treatment of evidence regarding a .38-caliber revolver; 2) pretrial preparation and investigation of a second…