Landon Jackson v. Martin Biter , 584 F. App'x 825 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 23 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LANDON BYRON JACKSON, No. 12-15117
Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-CV-00391-GEB-
CHS
v.
MARTIN BITER, Warden, MEMORANDUM*
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, Jr., Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted September 9, 2014
San Francisco, California
Before: BEA, IKUTA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Landon Byron Jackson, a California state prisoner, appeals the district
court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus. His appeal challenges his
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
conviction on two counts of attempted murder with firearm and gang
enhancements. We affirm.
1. We give deference under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty
Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), to the California state court’s reasoned decision holding
that any Confrontation Clause error in this case was harmless. Towery v. Schriro,
641 F.3d 300, 307 (9th Cir. 2010). In light of the overwhelming evidence of
Jackson’s guilt, including his admission that he was a gang member, and the
testimony of multiple witnesses, we conclude that this decision was not reversible
error. In the alternative, on de novo review, we would likewise conclude that any
Confrontation Clause error did not have a substantial and injurious effect in
determining the jury’s verdict.
2. To prevail on his due process claim, Jackson must show that the
California court’s reasoning “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or
involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as
determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
We have held that the admission of propensity evidence, even in violation of state
evidence law, does not violate Supreme Court precedent. Alberni v. McDaniel,
458 F.3d 860, 863 (9th Cir. 2006). We therefore deny Jackson’s claim.
2
3. We deny Jackson’s claim of cumulative error. The California state court
was not objectively unreasonable in determining that there was only one instance
of prosecutorial misconduct in this case, of minimal prejudice. In light of the
overwhelming strength of the State’s case against Jackson, we conclude that the
California Court of Appeal was not objectively unreasonable in finding that any
errors, whether relating to due process or prosecutorial misconduct, did not have “a
substantial and injurious effect or influence on the jury’s verdict.” Parle v.
Runnels, 505 F.3d 922, 928 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The district court’s order which denied Jackson’s petition for the writ of
habeas corpus is AFFIRMED.
3