Case Name: Warren Leroy MILLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Brian BELLEQUE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-12-09
Citations: 405 F. App'x 217
Docket Number: No. 09-35971
Parties: Warren Leroy MILLER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Brian BELLEQUE, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and EZRA, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 405
Pages: 217–218

Head Matter:
Warren Leroy MILLER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Brian BELLEQUE, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 09-35971.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 7, 2010.
Filed Dec. 9, 2010.
Francesca Freccero, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Portland, OR, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Cecil Reniche-Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Oregon Attorney General, Salem, OR, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and EZRA, District Judge.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable David A. Ezra, United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Miller claims that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated when his trial counsel, Janet Boytano, failed to investigate Debbie Barreras and failed to locate other girls who had lived in Barreras's foster home.
To prevail on a Sixth Amendment claim, Miller must demonstrate that his counsel's performance was deficient and that he was prejudiced by the deficiency. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690-92, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The state post-conviction review ("PCR") court found that Miller's evidence demonstrated, at most, that Boytano knew that one other girl who had previously lived with Barreras had made false accusations of sexual abuse. The PCR court's factual findings are entitled to deference, and we conclude that they are not unreasonable in light of the evidence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). Given its findings, the PCR court's conclusion — that Boytano's failure to investigate was not deficient — was a reasonable application of Strickland. See id. § 2254(d).
Because Miller has failed to demonstrate that Boytano's performance was "professionally unreasonable," we need not decide whether Miller was prejudiced by Boytano's failure to investigate. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct. 2052.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.