Case ID: f-appx_669/html/0929-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Michael David BENSON, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeri TAYLOR, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 15-35455
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted October 6, 2016 Portland, Oregon
    Filed October 28, 2016
    Anthony Bornstein, FPDOR—Federal Public Defender’s Office, Portland, OR, for Petitioner-Appellant
    Susan Reid Yorke, Oregon Department of Justice, Salem, OR, for Respondent-Appellee
    Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and CLIFTON and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Michael Benson appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habe-as petition challenging his felony murder conviction. We affirm the judgment of the district court for the reasons set forth in detail in the district court’s opinion dated June 8, 2015.

We agree with the district court that (1) Benson’s claims are not procedurally defaulted given the objections at trial and the fact that the Oregon Court of Appeals did not expressly invoke a procedural bar, see Smith v. Or. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 736 F.3d 857, 860 (9th Cir. 2013); (2) the state trial court’s admission of certain statements was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968) and Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185, 118 S.Ct. 1151, 140 L.Ed.2d 294 (1998); and (3) the constitutional error was harmless given Benson’s own testimony, the testimony of Frank Perotte, and other corroborating evidence, see Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.