Court Opinion

ID: 9814832
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 00:11:32.033865+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:45:15.534764
License: Public Domain

RAWLINSON, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the judgment.
I concur in the ruling affirming the denial of habeas relief. I write separately because I do'not rely on California law to support affirmance of the district court’s decision.
On habeas review, compliance with state law is not determinative of the outcome. Indeed, if the state court failed to comply with California law, such failure would not justify habeas relief. See Loftis v. Almager, 704 F.3d 645, 647 (9th Cir.2012) (citation omitted). (“It is axiomatic that habe-as relief lies only for violations of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States; errors of state law will not suffice....”) (citation omitted); see also Holley v. Yarborough, 568 F.3d 1091, 1101 (9th Cir.2009) (The issue for us, always, is whether the state proceedings satisfied due process; the presence or absence of a state law violation is largely beside the point....) (citation omitted).
In assessing a due process claim under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, we evaluate whether the challenged state court decision was so fundamentally flawed that the petitioner was deprived of a fair trial under clearly established federal law. See Holley, 568 F.3d 1091 at 1101 (explaining that habeas relief is warranted when constitutional errors have rendered a trial fundamentally unfair under “clearly established Federal law ...”) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)).
Petitioner’s due process claim was predicated on his assertion that the jury failed to deliberate regarding the gang enhancement. However, as noted by the majority, after questioning members of the jury, the trial court determined that the jury did deliberate regarding the gang enhancement. This finding was not an unreasonable determination of fact, no due process violation/fundamental unfairness occurred, and habeas relief is unavailable on these facts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2) (precluding habeas relief absent “an unreasonable determination of the facts” by a state *785court); see also Holley, 568 F.3d at 1101 (precluding habeas relief absent fundamental unfairness resulting in a lack of due process). I would deny habeas relief on this basis.