Case Name: Christopher CRUZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George M. GALAZA, Warden; C.A. Terhune, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-18
Citations: 270 F. App'x 599
Docket Number: No. 05-56731
Parties: Christopher CRUZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George M. GALAZA, Warden; C.A. Terhune, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 270
Pages: 599–601

Head Matter:
Christopher CRUZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George M. GALAZA, Warden; C.A. Terhune, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 05-56731.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted March 3, 2008.
Filed March 18, 2008.
Phillip A. Trevino, Esq., Law Offices of Phillip A. Trevino, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Xiomara Costello, Esq., Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: GOODWIN, SCHROEDER, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Christopher Cruz, a California state prisoner, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The state court concluded that his trial counsel's failure to interview witness and victim William Hutchinson was not deficient representation because there had been no showing that this was anything other than a reasonable tactical decision.
We must conclude that the record supports that conclusion, particularly in light of trial counsel's declaration before the district court explaining that Hutchinson had been hostile and uncooperative at the preliminary hearing and that counsel feared Hutchinson's testimony might have turned out to be damaging to Cruz. It was not an unreasonable application of federal law for the state court to hold that the facts failed to establish deficient representation. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publica-lion and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.