Case Name: Michael David BENSON, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeri TAYLOR, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-10-28
Citations: 669 F. App'x 929
Docket Number: No. 15-35455
Parties: Michael David BENSON, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeri TAYLOR, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and CLIFTON and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 669
Pages: 929–930

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.