Case Name: Kenneth WHEATON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Patrick GLEBE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-12-08
Citations: 705 F. App'x 648
Docket Number: No. 16-35554
Parties: Kenneth WHEATON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Patrick GLEBE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 705
Pages: 648–649

Head Matter:
Kenneth WHEATON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Patrick GLEBE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-35554
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted December 6, 2017 Seattle, Washington
Filed December 08, 2017
Michael Charles Kahrs, Attorney, Kahrs Law Firm, P.S., Seattle, WA, for Petitioner-Appellant
Paul D. Weisser, Senior Counsel, AGWA—Office of the Washington Attorney General (Olympia), Olympia, WA, for Respondent-Appellee
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P, 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Kenneth Wheaton appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction for two counts of second-degree rape and one count of felony harassment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.
1. It was not objectively unreasonable or contrary to clearly established law for the state court to conclude that Wheaton's right to a public trial was not violated given the absence of any evidence that (1) the trial judge ordered the courtroom closed or (2) the public was wholly excluded due to space limitations. United States v. Withers, 638 F.3d 1055, 1063 (9th Cir. 2011).
2. Wheaton's ineffective assistance of counsel claim is procedurally defaulted because he did not fairly present it to the Washington Supreme Court. Cooper v. Neven, 641 F.3d 322, 326 (9th Cir. 2011). Wheaton also failed to raise the claim in his federal habeas petition until his reply brief. See Cacoperdo v. Demosthenes, 37 F.3d 504, 507 (9th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.