Case ID: f-appx_688/html/0455-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Samuel Kwame AMANKRAH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. F. X. CHAVEZ, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 11-57060
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 11, 2017 
    
    Filed April 20, 2017
    Samuel Kwame Amankrah, Pro Se
    Andrew Mestman, Neru Joy Utomi, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Kevin Vienna, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, AGCA — Office of the Attorney General (San Diego), San Diego, CA, for Respondent-Appellee
    Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Samuel Kwame Amankrah appeals pro se from the district court s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo the denial of a habeas corpus petition, see Fairbank v. Ayers, 650 F.3d 1243, 1250 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.

Amankrah argues that the prosecutor made several remarks during closing argument that violated Amankrah’s Fifth Amendment right not to testify under Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 615, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed,2d 106 (1965). The California Court of Appeal analyzed the prosecutor’s entire closing argument and concluded that two of the comments were improper, but that the Griffin error was harmless under Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). The state court’s rejection of Amankrah’s claim was not contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, either Griffin or Chapman, nor an unreasonable determination of facts based on the evidence presented. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Davis v. Ayala, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2187, 2199, 192 L.Ed.2d 323 (2015). Moreover, given the significant evidence of his guilt at trial, Amankrah has not shown that the prosecutor’s remarks had a “substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (internal quotations omitted); see also Davis, 135 S.Ct. at 2198.

Amankrah’s motion to present late new evidence is denied.

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