NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE MEZA, Petitioner

- Appellant,

v. STUART SHERMAN, Warden,

Respondent

- Appellee. No. 19

- 15733
D.C. No. 3:18

- cv - 00599

- JD

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California James Donato, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 10, 2021 * * Pasadena, California Before: M. SMITH, MURGUIA, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Jose Meza appeals t he district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas
corpus
. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 28 U.S.C. § 2253

. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here , except as necessary to provide context to our ruling

. We affirm the decision of the district

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

FEB 12 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

court. The California appellate court’s determination that Crawford v. Washington , 541 U.S. 36 (2004), governs a Confrontation Clause analysis was not contrary to,

n or an unreasonable application of , Supreme Court authority

. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment provides that in a criminal case, the accused has the right to “be confronted with the witnesses against him.” U.S. Const. amend. VI. In Bruton v. United States , 391 U.S. 123 (1968) , the Supreme Court “recognized that, in joint trials, when one nontestifying codefendant’s confession is admitted only against that codefendant, there is

unav oidably a ‘substantial risk that the jury

. . . [will] look[] to the incriminating extrajudicial statements in determining [the other defendant’s] guilt.’” Lucero v. Holland , 902 F.3d 979, 987 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Bruton , 391 U.S. at 126). The Court, therefore, held that a defendant is deprived o f his constitutional “right of
confrontation when the facially incriminating confession of a nontestifying codefendant is introduced at their joint trial.” Id. (quoting Richardson v. Marsh , 481 U.S. 200, 2 07 (1987)). The Supreme Court revisited the protections of the Confrontation Clause in Crawford

. See 541 U.S. at 50

– 51. In “establish [ ing ] a new general framework for enforcing this confrontation right,” the Court in Crawford held that the constitutionalit y of a statement entered at trial “hinge[s] on the ‘testimonial’3

character of [that] statement.” Lucero , 902 F.3d at 896

– 97 (quoting Crawford , 541 U.S. at 50, 68). Thus, post

- Crawford , “a statement of a nontestifying witness that is
testimonial and offer ed for its truth” cannot be admitted at trial, “absent unavailability and a prior chance for cross

- examination.” United States v. Brooks , 772 F.3d 1161, 1167 (9th Cir. 2014). Here, the California appellate court rejected Meza’s argument that “the
Aranda

- Bruton rule applies when the codefendant’s confession amounts to a non

testimonial statement under Crawford ,” holding that pursuant to Crawford , “the Sixth Amendment applies onl y to testimonial statements.” Accordingly, the district court properly held that the state appellate court did not err. Furthermore, the California Court of Appeal’s conclusion that Meza’s co

defendants’ out

- of

- court statements were nontestimonial is no t contrary to , n or an unreasonable application of , Supreme Court authority , and is not an unreasonable determination of the facts

. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). We apply the “primary purpose” test to determine whether a statement qualifies as testimonial. Da vis v. Washington , 547 U.S. 813, 822 (2006). “Under that test, statements are testimonial when they result from questioning, ‘the primary purpose of [which was] to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution .’” Lucero , 902 F.3d at 989 (quoting Davis , 547 U.S. at 822). In determining the “primary purpose” of a statement, the court “objectively evaluate[s] the circumstances in which the4

encounter occurs and the statements and actions of the parties.” Michigan v. Bryant , 562 U.S. 344, 359 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). Although “[f]ormality is not the sole touchstone of [the ] primary purpose inquiry,” it is a factor in the analysis. Id. at 366, 377 ; see also Ohio v. Clark , 576 U.S. 237, 247 (2015) (no ting that the nontestimonial statements at issue were “informal and spontaneous” and occurred in an “informal setting”)

. The record reflects that Meza’s co

- defendants’ out

- of

- court statements were nontestimonial. The statements were spoken to fellow gan g member s , effectively bragging about the shooting. The informality of the statements is further evinced by the speakers’ use of nicknames and slang words, the discussion of things other than the shooting, including buying guns and obtaining money from th e gang, and the location of the conversation: a co - defendant’s own home. See Clark , 576 U.S. at 247

. Accordingly, the primary purpose of the pertinent conversations was not “ to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecu tion.”
Davis , 547 U.S. at 822.
AFFIRMED

.