MEMORANDUM ***

Miller claims that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated when his trial counsel, *218 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.