United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 20-1665 ALONSO CORRAL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. BRIAN FOSTER, Respondent-Appellee. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. No. 19-C-1809 — William C. Griesbach, Judge. ____________________

ARGUED MARCH 2, 2021 — DECIDED JULY 16, 2021 ____________________

Before RIPPLE, HAMILTON, and KIRSCH, Circuit Judges. KIRSCH, Circuit Judge. A jury convicted Alonso Corral of at- tempted homicide after two men who knew him swore that he shot at them. At trial, Corral presented a mistaken-identity defense, urging that the real shooter was a 15-year-old named “Kenny.” 1 Because Corral’s trial counsel believed that Corral 1 Because “Kenny” was a juvenile at the time of trial, the state court used a pseudonym, as do we. 2 No. 20-1665 and Kenny did not look alike, he did not present evidence of Kenny’s appearance. Corral argues that this decision was con- stitutionally deficient. After failing to persuade state courts of this view, Corral petitioned for federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which the district court denied. Because the last state court to adjudicate the merits of Corral’s ineffective- ness claim considered his claim in light of the relevant circum- stances and reasonably concluded that his counsel made a sound strategic decision not to present the appearance evi- dence, we affirm under the doubly deferential standard that governs our review. I A In the afternoon on February 5, 2014, shots were fired in the parking lot of an apartment complex in Waukesha, Wis- consin. John Brautigam, Damian Jimenez, and two children were parked in a van when a man approached and shot at Brautigam through his open window. Brautigam ducked, the shooter fired again, and Jimenez sped them away. At trial, Brautigam and Jimenez both identified Corral as the shooter. Brautigam testified that he saw Corral in the parking lot a few minutes before the shooting; Brautigam then looked down at his phone, and upon looking back up, he saw Corral pointing a gun at him from five to ten feet away. Brautigam had known Corral for fifteen years; they were friends, and both were members of the Latin Kings gang. Brautigam saw Corral regularly before the shooting incident. He noted that Corral was wearing a hat that he had seen him wear “plenty of times” before. Jimenez testified that he saw two men nearby before the shooting; one ran behind another No. 20-1665 3 vehicle, and the second, whom Jimenez recognized as Corral, walked toward his van. Jimenez did not know Corral well, but he said, “What’s up, Alonso?” before Corral pulled out a gun and started shooting. Corral’s counsel argued that Jimenez and Brautigam’s identifications—which were the only evidence tying Corral to the crime—were unreliable for several reasons. First, he insin- uated that both men were drug addicts trying to buy heroin at the time of the shooting. Second, both men had made in- consistent statements about the shooting. Brautigam initially told police that he had not seen the shooter; he changed his story only after a detective said that Jimenez had already identified Corral. Then, a few months before trial, Brautigam told Corral’s private investigator that he was not “100% sure” that Corral was the shooter. Meanwhile, Jimenez initially told the police that the shooting happened “really fast,” and he could not remember all of it. Third, both men’s views of the shooter’s face were partially obs