Case ID: f-appx_121/html/0175-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Edward Karl SCHROEDER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gail LEWIS, Deputy Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 04-15517.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 10, 2005.
    
    Decided Jan. 18, 2004.
    Edward Karl Sehroeder, Coalinga, CA, pro se.
    John H. Deist, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General (SF), San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: BEEZER, HALL and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Edward Karl Sehroeder, California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his conviction for possession of stolen property, indecent exposure, and sexual battery. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.

Sehroeder fails to demonstrate that the state court’s adjudication of the merits “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.” See Penry v. Johnson, 532 U.S. 782, 792, 121 S.Ct. 1910, 150 L.Ed.2d 9 (2001). Though inadmissible extrinsic evidence of a prior conviction was admitted during juror deliberations, the evidence did not have a “substantial and injurious effect or influence” on the verdict. See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 638, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993); Sassounian v. Roe, 230 F.3d 1097, 1109-10 (9th Cir.2000). The jury had already reached a verdict on five of the six counts before viewing the extrinsic evidence, the jurors were already aware that Schroeder had prior offenses from trial testimony, the jurors testified they did not consider the extrinsic evidence, and the trial court found that the extrinsic evidence was not sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial. See Sassounian, 230 F.3d at 1109-10; see also Mancuso v. Olivarez, 292 F.3d 939, 953 (9th Cir.2002) (giving weight to trial court’s finding that no new trial was warranted after listening to all the evidence and evidence of juror misconduct).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.