Case Name: Michael J. YANCEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeanne S. WOODFORD, Director of the California Department of Corrections; Charles Harrison, Warden of the California State Prison, Los Angeles County, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-04-28
Citations: 430 F. App'x 586
Docket Number: No. 08-15966
Parties: Michael J. YANCEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeanne S. WOODFORD, Director of the California Department of Corrections; Charles Harrison, Warden of the California State Prison, Los Angeles County, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 430
Pages: 586–587

Head Matter:
Michael J. YANCEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeanne S. WOODFORD, Director of the California Department of Corrections; Charles Harrison, Warden of the California State Prison, Los Angeles County, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 08-15966.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted April 13, 2011.
Filed April 28, 2011.
Dennis P. Riordan, Riordan & Horgan, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Dorian Jung, Esquire, Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judge, and BLOCK, District Judge.
The Honorable Frederic Block, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The state court could reasonably conclude that the constitutional errors at trial were harmless. Yancey therefore can't make the more difficult showing of prejudice required on collateral review. See Fry v. Pliler, 551 U.S. 112, 119-20, 127 S.Ct. 2321, 168 L.Ed.2d 16 (2007). State courts do not have to follow the federal procedural rule on severance, see Collins v. Runnels, 603 F.3d 1127, 1131-32 (9th Cir.2010), and we don't review whether the trial court's evidentiary rulings were proper under state law, see Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.