Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Armenta v. Harrington

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

October 18, 2013

RICHARD ARMENTA, Petitioner,
v.
KELLY HARRINGTON, Warden, Respondent.

ORDER

WILLIAM Q. HAYES, District Judge.

The matter before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 24) of United States Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr. recommending that the Court deny Petitioner Richard Armenta's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1).

BACKGROUND FACTS[1]

At around nine or ten o'clock in the evening of September 15, 2001, Francisco Hernandez arrived at a house party on B Street in Brawley, California. Members of the "Brolenos" gang were among the party's guests. Hernandez was in the front yard of the house later in the night when a man approached him from the street and said "come here, " indicating that he wanted Hernandez to open the gate to the yard. Believing the man to be a friend, Hernandez complied. The man then pulled out a handgun and "opened fire." Hernandez was shot in the back as he ran towards the house. Once inside, Hernandez hid behind a refrigerator, unaware that he had been shot until he saw blood "pouring out of" his back.

When the shooting ended, Hernandez found his friend, 16-year old Jesse Garcia, lying on the floor near the front door of the home, bleeding from a gunshot wound to his forehead. Hernandez left the scene because he had an outstanding arrest warrant, and called Mary Vasquez, a friend's mother, to pick him up at a house down the block. Police and paramedics soon arrived at the scene of the shooting. Garcia was transported to a hospital, where he remained in a coma for three months until he died on December 18, 2001. Garcia did not belong to a gang. Hernandez refused to cooperate with the police after he checked himself into the hospital. No arrests were made in connection with the shooting for over five years.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

I. State Proceedings

On January 11, 2007, Petitioner and Jesus Gastelum were charged in a second amended information with murder[2] and conspiracy to commit murder[3] for their involvement in the September 15, 2001 shooting. (Lodgment 3, Volume 1, Part 1 at 100-03, ECF No. 16-30). The information contained a special circumstance allegation that Petitioner and Gastelum intentionally killed Garcia while actively participating in a criminal street gang.[4] Id. at 104. The amended information also alleged that the crimes were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang;[5] that a principal to the conspiracy personally used a firearm, personally discharged a firearm, and personally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury and death;[6] and that Gastelum had suffered a prior serious or violent felony conviction. Id. at 104-05.

On December 6, 2007, an Imperial County Grand Jury returned an amended indictment charging Petitioner and Gastelum with attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder. (Lodgment 2, Volume 2, Part 1 at 388-91, ECF No. 16-32). The attempted murder charge, which was based on Hernandez's injury, was subsequently dismissed on statute of limitations grounds. (Lodgment 1, Volume 9 at 713-17, ECF No. 16-9). The two-count information and the amended indictment were consolidated. Id.

A. Trial Proceedings

On June 11, 2008, the trial for Petitioner and Gastelum commenced. Petitioner and Gastelum were tried jointly by a single jury. Id. at 716.

1. Prosecution Witnesses

The prosecution introduced evidence that Petitioner and Gastelum were members of the "Chicali Brasas 13" ("Chicali Brasas") gang; that Petitioner went by the gang moniker "Widget;" and that Gastelum went by the gang moniker "Pookie." (Lodgment 1, Volume 10 at 818-20, ECF No. 16-10).

Daniel Villa Castillo (referred to as "Villa") testified that he went to Petitioner's house on the night of the shooting to buy drugs. Id. at 821-23. Villa testified that he and Petitioner drove Petitioner's car down B Street and noticed members of the rival "Brolenos" gang at a house party. Id. at 823-25. Villa testified that Petitioner asked him whether he would shoot someone at the house if Petitioner gave him a gun, and that Villa did not respond to Petitioner's question. Id. at 826-27. Villa testified that, upon returning to Petitioner's house, Petitioner told everyone in the room - including Gastelum, Petitioner's brother, and a third person who Villa believed went by the gang moniker "Ghost" - that Brolenos gang members were at a party on B Street. Id. at 827-28. Villa testified that Petitioner asked if anyone would volunteer to do a shooting at the party, and that Gastelum responded by saying that "he was going to do the job for his gang." Id. at 828. Villa testified that Petitioner retrieved a handgun from a hiding place inside a speaker, at which point Gastelum cleaned the gun, someone else cleaned bullets for the gun, and Petitioner loaded the gun. Id. at 829, 831. Villa testified that Gastelum took the gun and "put it on his belt, " id. at 830, and that Petitioner and Gastelum left the house together in a Toyota Camry owned by Petitioner's mother. Id. at 834. Villa testified that he and others listened to a police scanner in Petitioner's room, and eventually heard a police report about a shooting on B Street. Id. at 835-36. Villa testified that Petitioner and Gastelum returned to Petitioner's house a few minutes later and "were, like, very anxious, happy that they had done something.... Something good." Id. at 836. Villa testified that Gastelum said he had gotten out of the car, knocked on the door at the house party, and shot the person who answered the door in the head as he said, "Puto, Chicali Brasas." Id. at 837. Villa testified that Gastelum said he fired three or four more bullets, and thought he hit someone else. Id. at 837-38. Villa testified that he did not immediately go to the police because he feared for his life and the lives of his family. Id. at 840. Villa testified that he decided to write two letters to the FBI while he was in prison in 2003 because he "decided to do the right thing." Id. at 841.

Joseph Somenek, an investigator with the California Department of Justice, testified that he had worked on the Jesse Garcia murder case since 2005. (Lodgment 1, Volume 11 at 1017, ECF No. 16-11). Somonek testified that Villa picked Petitioner and Gastelum out of lineups at the Imperial County Jail on August 31, 2006. Id. at 1023-26.

Israel Salazar, who went by the gang moniker "Chivo, " testified "in exchange for complete immunity." (Lodgment 1, Volume 12 at 1074, ECF No. 16-12). Salazar testified that he had been a member of the Chicali Brasas gang for 14 years, but that he left the gang roughly two years prior to Petitioner's trial. Id. at 1074. Salazar testified that Petitioner and Petitioner's girlfriend came to visit him several hours before the September 15, 2001 shooting, (Lodgment 1, Volume 13 at 1192, ECF No. 16-13), and that Petitioner asked whether he would accompany him to a Brolenos gang party to "blast them, " i.e. "shoot" them. (Lodgment 1, Volume 12 at 1083). Salazar testified that Petitioner said he was going to visit Pete Castellanos, a fellow Chicali Brasas gang member who was paralyzed as a result of being shot by a Brolenos gang member, before carrying out the shooting on B Street. Id. at 1084-85. Salazar testified that Petitioner had said in the past that "somebody had to pay back" for the Castellanos shooting. Id. at 1085. Salazar testified that Petitioner came to Salazar's house a few hours later, gave Salazar a gun that he instructed him to hide, id. at 1092-93, and told Salazar that "some shit went down on B Street." Id. at 1086-87. Salazar testified that he later spoke to Petitioner about the shooting and was told that Gastelum was the shooter. Id. at 1089. Salazar testified that he spoke with Petitioner in the Imperial County Jail in 2006 during a chance encounter, and that Petitioner had asked him not to testify against him because "this shit is serious and [Petitioner and Gastelum] are facing life." Id. at 1098-1100.

Luis Alberto Santoyo, another Chicali Brasas gang member, testified that he was at Petitioner's house in April 2005 with Gastelum, Petitioner, and Petitioner's brother. (Lodgment 1, Volume 13 at 1037, 1043-44, ECF No. 16-13). Santoyo testified that Petitioner said someone had been speaking to the police about the gun used in the shooting, and that Petitioner told Santoyo that someone named "Santos" had taken the gun to Mexico. Id. at 1245. Santoyo testified that Gastelum once told him that Gastelum was approached by an individual in jail who mentioned that the Jesse Garcia murder was a drive-by shooting - the type of shooting forbidden by imprisoned gang leaders, also known as "shot callers, " because of the potential for innocent victims. Id. at 1247-50. Santoyo testified that Gastelum said he corrected this individual, telling him the shooting was not a drive-by, and that he had carried it out. Id. at 1249. Santoyo testified that he met Petitioner in jail in December of 2007 and that Petitioner asked Santoyo not to testify against him. Id. at 1253. Santoyo testified that, while he was in jail, he received a letter from Petitioner dated January 9, 2008, in which Petitioner asked Santoyo not to testify. (Lodgment 1, Volume 14 at 1340-44, ECF No. 16-14). Santoyo testified that he recognized Petitioner's handwriting on the letter. Id. at 1340.

Francisco Hernandez testified that he was shot in the back by an individual who approached the house on B Street. Id. at 1373-74. Hernandez testified that the individual who shot him was present in court, and then identified Gastelum as the shooter. Id. at 1375-76. Hernandez testified that after he was shot, he ran into the house and behind a refrigerator and noticed blood "pouring out of [his] back." Id. at 1376. Hernandez testified that when he decided to leave the house, he noticed his friend, Jesse Garcia, laying on the floor with blood "pouring" from his head "like a water fountain." Id. at 1377. Hernandez testified that he called Mary Vasquez, a friend's mother, and asked her to pick him up "three, four houses down" from the shooting. Id. at 1379. Hernandez testified that he went to the hospital about an hour after being shot. Id. at 1380. Hernandez testified that he refused to cooperate with the police because he was afraid of retaliation, id. at 1381, and did not want to be known as a snitch. Id. at 1384. Hernandez testified that Salazar was his cellmate in jail at some point after the shooting, and that Salazar told Hernandez that Petitioner brought the gun to Salazar's house. Hernandez testified that Salazar told him that Petitioner later returned to retrieve the gun. Id. at 1396-98.

During a break in Hernandez's testimony, counsel for Petitioner told the Court that he had observed Vasquez, the next scheduled witness, communicating with two jurors outside the courtroom. (Lodgment 1, Volume 15 at 1528, ECF No. 16-15). After holding a hearing on the matter, the court determined that the jurors had been approached by Vasquez's husband, a casual acquaintance of one juror, that the case had not been discussed, and that the encounter was harmless. Id. at 1529-36. The court denied Petitioner's request to prohibit Vasquez from testifying. (Lodgment 1, Volume 16 at 1664-78, ECF No. 16-16).

Vasquez testified that her sister lives near the house on B Street where the shooting occurred, and that she had seen Petitioner driving near her sister's house a few hours before the shooting. Id. at 1679-84. Vasquez testified that her son and nephew were members of the Broleno gang. Id. at 1685. Vasquez testified that she approached Petitioner when he got out of his car and told Petitioner that she was worried about his presence in a Broleno gang neighborhood. Id. at 1686-87. Vasquez testified that Petitioner told her: "Don't worry. I'm not doing anything. I just stopped to take a piss." Id. at 1687. Vasquez testified that Hernandez called her later in the night and asked to be picked up at Vasquez's sister's house on B Street. Id. at 1690. Vasquez picked Hernandez up and drove him to a friend's house. Id.

Jose Soto, a Special Agent for the California Department of Justice, testified that he had worked on the Jesse Garcia murder since September 2001. Id. at 1588. Soto testified that he was informed by Brawley Police Detective Greg Heath that Salazar had called the Brawley Police Department on September 18, 2001 and said that he had information regarding the weapon used in a recent shooting. Id. at 1589. Soto testified that he went to Salazar's house and arrested him for an outstanding warrant related to a traffic violation. Id. at 1589-90. Soto testified that Salazar voluntarily provided information about the shooting before Salazar was offered complete immunity in exchange for his testimony. Id. at 1590.

Perry Juan Monita, a Patrol Sergeant and gang expert with the Brawley Police Department, testified regarding gang activity in Brawley. (Lodgment 1, Volume 17 at 1789-91, ECF No. 16-17). Monita testified that Jesse Garcia was not a gang member. Id. at 1835. Monita testified that Petitioner was involved in a gang-related incident in October 2001, roughly one month after the Jesse Garcia murder, and that Petitioner was convicted of street terrorism as a result. Id. at 1822-83. The court instructed Monita not to mention that the street terrorism conviction involved a gang-related shooting. Id. at 1818-21. However, Monita inadvertently testified that the police had responded to the incident in October 2001 after receiving a call on a gang-related shooting. Id. at 1818. The court instructed the jurors to disregard Monita's comment about a shooting. Id. at 1821-22.

The prosecution recalled Santoyo. Santoyo testified that the January 9, 2008 letter from Petitioner referenced "Kat, " a gang moniker for Carlos Landa. Id. at 1873-74. Santoyo testified that Petitioner had asked Landa to tell Santoyo not to testify, and that if he Santoyo did testify, he should lie. Id. at 1874-76.

2. Defense Witnesses

Bianca Garcia, who has three children with Salazar, testified that she lived with Salazar in Brawley from 1994 to 2001, which she described as the worst years of her life. (Lodgment 1, Volume 18 at 1977, 1983, ECF No. 16-18). Garcia testified that she never permitted Petitioner to come to her house. Id. at 1981-82. She testified that she was sleeping well during the period of time encompassing the shooting, and that it is possible Petitioner came to her home on the night of the shooting when she was asleep. Id. at 1985-89.

Doris Armenta, wife of Petitioner and the mother of Petitioner's two children, testified that she was dating Petitioner in 2001 while she was in high school. Id. at 1994, 2013. During Armenta's testimony, the record reflects that Petitioner made "a run for the back gate" of the courtroom, and stated "fuck that fool." Id. at 1995. The courtroom deputy stated outside the presence of the jury that Petitioner had attempted to spit on a member of the public. Id. at 1996. Counsel for Petitioner stated outside the presence of the jury that Petitioner was upset that Petitioner's wife brought her new boyfriend to court. Id. at 1997. When the jury returned, the court told the jury that it appeared Petitioner was upset that his wife's boyfriend was in court, and that Petitioner would not be present during the remainder of her testimony. Id. at 2005-06. Armenta testified that she was in Mexicali, Mexico attending a birthday party on the night of the shooting. Id. at 2008. Armenta testified that she had called Petitioner at his home and spoken with him at least ten times on the night of the shooting, including past midnight. Id. at 2011.

Agent Soto testified that Hernandez was first forthcoming with the police about the shooting on December 6, 2006. Id. at 2077. Soto testified that he had applied for arrest warrants for Petitioner and Gastelum on May 2, 2006. Id. at 2088.

Landa testified that he met Petitioner and Santoyo in jail. (Lodgment 1, Volume 19 at 2137, ECF No. 16-19). Landa denied that Petitioner asked him to give Santoyo a message. Id. at 2139. Defense counsel asked Landa whether he was afraid of Petitioner. Id. at 2141. Landa answered: "What for?" Id. at 2142. The prosecutor then asked Landa whether he had ever told Agent Soto that Petitioner "will kill you if you cross him" and that Petitioner "wouldn't hesitate to shoot someone." Id. Landa answered "no" over a defense objection. Id. During the prosecution's rebuttal case, Agent Somenek was recalled and testified that he and Agent Soto had interviewed Landa on July 3, 2008; a recording of that interview was played for the jury. (Lodgment 1, Volume 23 at 2847-51, ECF No. 16-23). On the recording, a transcript of which is in the record, Landa is heard saying that Petitioner is the type of person who "won't hesitate to shoot you" and if "you cross him he'll kill you." (Lodgment 3, Volume 3, Part 2 at 739, ECF No. 16-35). The court denied Petitioner's mistrial motion based on the prejudicial impact of Landa's statements. (Lodgment 1, Volume 23 at 2857-59, ECF No. 16-23).

Antonio Zamora Fernandez testified that he visited Petitioner's house at about 7:30 p.m. on the night of the shooting. (Lodgment 1, Volume 19 at 2144-47, ECF No. 16-19). Fernandez testified that Petitioner answered the door when he arrived and that Petitioner remained there until Fernandez left at around 9:15 or 9:30. Id. at 2147-50.

Lupe Salcido testified that she was with Petitioner at his house on September 15, 2001 from 10:00 p.m. until midnight. Id. at 2153-56. Salcido testified that she left for a few minutes and then returned, staying until 1:00 a.m. Id. at 2158. Salcido testified that Petitioner was at the house the entire time. Id.

Frances Sepulveda Valenzuela testified that she was at home with Petitioner on the evening of September 15, 2001, and that, to her knowledge, Petitioner did not leave the house that night. Id. at 2181-82. Valenzuela testified that Santoyo told her in 2008 that he was implicating Petitioner in the shooting as payback for Petitioner implicating Santoyo in another murder. Id. at 2189-90. Valenzuela testified that Santoyo later apologized to her and said that "they are making" him testify against Petitioner. Id. at 2192.

3. Verdict and Sentencing

On August 6, 2008, the jury found Petitioner and Gastelum guilty of murder and conspiracy to commit murder. (Lodgment 1, Volume 25 at 3122-23, ECF No. 16-25). The jury made a special circumstances finding that Petitioner had intentionally killed Garcia to further the activities of a criminal street gang. Id. at 3122. The jury found that allegation not true as to Gastelum. Id. at 3123.

On November 5, 2008, Petitioner was sentenced to twenty-five years to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Id. at 3179. Gastelum was sentenced to twenty-five years to life in prison. Id. at 3157.

B. State Appellate Proceedings

On August 3, 2009, Petitioner appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal, raising claims one, four and six presented in this federal Petition, along with a claim challenging the jury's special circumstance finding. (Lodgment No. 5, ECF No. 16-37). On August 30, 2010, the California Court of Appeal affirmed Petitioner's conviction in an unpublished opinion, and denied the claims raised in this Petition on the merits. (Lodgment 8, ECF No. 16-40). The California Court of Appeal granted relief on Petitioner's claim challenging the jury's special circumstance finding, and remanded to the trial court with instructions to re-sentence Petitioner to a term of twenty-five years-to life.[7] Id. at 46-58.

On June 1, 2010, Petitioner filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court, raising claims one, four and six presented in this federal Petition. (Lodgment No. 9, ECF No. 16-41). On August 11, 2010, the California Supreme Court summarily denied the petition for review. (Lodgment No. 10, ECF No. 16-42).

On November 1, 2011, Petitioner filed a habeas petition in the California Supreme Court, raising claims two through six presented in this federal Petition. (Lodgment 11, ECF No. 16-43). On April 11, 2012, the California Supreme Court summarily denied the petition. (Lodgment 12, ECF No. 16-44).

II. Federal Proceedings

On November 4, 2011, Petitioner filed the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition") in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1). In his six claims for relief, Petitioner alleges that his rights under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution were violated because: (1) highly prejudicial character evidence was erroneously introduced at trial; (2) trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to call a handwriting expert to testify; (3) appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to raise claim five presented here on appeal; (4) the trial court failed to excuse two jurors who spoke to the husband of a key prosecution witness during a recess; (5) trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to request that a juror who was acquainted with the husband of a key prosecution witness be excused; and (6) the jury heard inadmissible evidence regarding Petitioner's conviction for street terrorism. Id. at 10-11.

On September 7, 2012, Respondent filed an Answer to the Petition. (ECF No. 22). Respondent contends that federal habeas relief is unavailable because the state court's adjudication of Petitioner's claims involved an objectively reasonable application of clearly established federal law. On October 1, 2012, Petitioner filed a Traverse. (ECF No. 23.)

On January 23, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Court deny the Petition in its entirety. (ECF No. 24). On February 1, 2013, Petitioner filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 25).

STANDARDS OF REVIEW

Review of the Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)

The duties of the district court in connection with a Report and Recommendation of a Magistrate Judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When a party objects to a Report and Recommendation, "[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [Report and Recommendation] to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A district court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Review of the Petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)

In this case, review of the Petition is governed by the framework of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA") because the Petition was filed in 2010, well after the Act's effective date. See Woodford v. Garceau, 538 U.S. 202, 210 (2003). As amended by AEDPA, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) states:

An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim-
(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or
(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

"Although AEDPA's scheme is complex, and its provisions have been subjected to multiple, sometimes conflicting, interpretations, this much is clear: deference to state court determinations must follow an adjudication on the merits." Lambert v. Blodgett, 393 F.3d 943, 965 (9th Cir. 2004). "When a federal claim has been presented to a state court and the state court has denied relief, it may be presumed that the state court adjudicated the claim on the merits in the absence of any indication or state-law procedural principles to the contrary." Harrington v. Richter, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 770, 784-85 (2011); see also Johnson v. Williams, 133 S.Ct. 1088, 1097 (2013) (holding that when a state court rejects some claims on the merits but does not expressly address a federal claim, there is a presumption subject to rebuttal that the state court also adjudicated the federal claim on the merits). "The presumption may be overcome when there is reason to think some other explanation for the state court's decision is more likely." Id. at 785 (citing Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 803 (1991)).

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), a state court decision is "contrary to" clearly established precedent if it "applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in our cases" or if it "confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of this Court and nevertheless arrives at a result different from our precedent." Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 8 (2002) (per curiam) (quotation omitted). A decision is an "unreasonable" application if the state court "correctly identifies the governing legal rule but applies it unreasonably to the facts of a particular prisoner's case." Williams, 529 U.S. at 407-08. "[A] federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply because the court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly.... Rather, that application must be objectively unreasonable." Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 75-76 (2003) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2), "[f]actual determinations by state courts are presumed correct absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, § 2254(e)(1), and a decision adjudicated on the merits in a state court and based on a factual determination will not be overturned on factual grounds unless objectively unreasonable in light of the evidence presented in the state-court proceeding." Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 340 (2003). "The question under AEDPA is not whether a federal court believes the state court's determination was incorrect but whether that determination was unreasonable - a substantially higher threshold." Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 473 (2007).

DISCUSSION

I. Claims One and Six: Admission of Overly Prejudicial Evidence

In claim one, Petitioner contends that he was deprived his Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when the trial court: (1) permitted the prosecutor to ask Landa whether he told a police officer that Petitioner was the type of person who would kill someone who crossed him; and (2) permitted the admission of Landa's recorded statement into evidence, in which Landa is heard stating that Petitioner was the type of person who would kill someone who crossed him and that Petitioner was the type of person who would not hesitate to shoot someone. (Pet. at 10; Pet. Mem. at 26-36). Petitioner contends that the question was designed to elicit unduly prejudicial character evidence, and that the recording introduced such evidence.

In claim six, Petitioner contends that he was denied his Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and a fair trial on the basis that highly prejudicial evidence that lacked significant probative value was admitted regarding his previous conviction for street terrorism. (Pet. at 11.)

The California Supreme Court summarily denied Petitioner's petition for review, which raised claims one and six presented in this federal Petition. A summary denial by the state's high court is presumed to be an adjudication "on the merits" within the meaning of AEDPA. See Harrington, 131 S.Ct. at 784-85. This Court must "look through" the California Supreme Court's summary denial and review the state court's last reasoned decision on claims one and six, which is the California Court of Appeal's written decision affirming Petitioner's conviction on direct appeal. See id.; Ylst, 501 U.S. at 803 ("Where there has been ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.