Opinion ID: 1436385
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: California Appellate Proceedings

Text: The California Court of Appeal affirmed Ali's conviction on direct appeal in an unpublished opinion. With respect to Ali's Wheeler/Batson claim, the appeals court concluded that [t]he jury selection process was not marred by purposeful discrimination, holding that substantial evidence support[ed] the trial court's finding that the peremptory challenges were exercised without a discriminatory purpose. Like the trial court, however, the California Court of Appeal did not engage in comparative juror analysis. At the time, California law did not permit a court to conduct comparative analysis for the first time on appeal. See People v. Johnson, 30 Cal.4th 1302, 1325, 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 71 P.3d 270 (2003), rev'd sub nom. Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162, 125 S.Ct. 2410, 162 L.Ed.2d 129 (2005). [3] In a separate order, the California Court of Appeal denied Ali's state habeas corpus petition without further analysis. The California Supreme Court denied Ali's petition for review and, later, rejected his state habeas petition in a one-line disposition.