Ashmindar Singh v. William Knipp , 518 F. App'x 524 ( 2013 )

FILED
I NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 10 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ASHMINDAR JEET SINGH, No. 11-17207
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01453-GEB-
CHS
v.
WILLIAM KNIPP, Warden, MEMORANDUM *
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 15, 2013
San Francisco, California
Before: GRABER and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and TUNHEIM, District
Judge.**
California state prisoner Ashmindar Jeet Singh appeals the district court’s
denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable John R. Tunheim, District Judge for the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s decision to grant or deny a
habeas petition, Collins v. Runnels, 603 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir. 2010), and we
affirm.
Singh’s habeas petition – which is governed by the Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) – cannot be granted unless the
state court’s adjudication of the merits was (1) “contrary to, or involved an
unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the
Supreme Court of the United States”; or (2) “based on an unreasonable
determination of the facts.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
Singh contends the joinder of his trial with the trial of four co-defendants
deprived him of due process of law and a fair trial. The California Court of
Appeal’s rejection of this claim did not contradict or unreasonably apply binding
United States Supreme Court precedent; under AEDPA, the Supreme Court has not
“clearly established” that misjoinder can amount to a constitutional violation. See
Collins, 603 F.3d at 1132.
Singh also contends his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance of
counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 697 (1984), by failing to
accept the trial court’s offer to sever Singh’s trial. The California Court of
Appeal’s conclusion that Singh failed to demonstrate that prejudice resulted from
2
his counsel’s representation is not contrary to or an unreasonable application of
Strickland. Id. (“[A] court need not determine whether counsel’s performance was
deficient before examining the prejudice suffered by the defendant as a result of
the alleged deficiencies.”). The evidence against Singh was strong, the trial court
provided limiting instructions, and the jury acquitted Singh of robbery and returned
a “not true” finding as to a weapons enhancement. See Park v. California, 202
F.3d 1146, 1150 (9th Cir. 2000) (“We have held that the failure of the jury to
convict on all counts is the best evidence of the jury’s ability to compartmentalize
the evidence.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
AFFIRMED.
3