Dario Cannon v. Gerald Janda ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AUG 05 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
DARIO L. CANNON, No. 15-15374
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:13-cv-02419-TEH
v.
MEMORANDUM*
GERALD JANDA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Thelton E. Henderson, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted July 19, 2016
San Francisco, California
Before: GRABER and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and EDMUNDS**, Senior
District Judge.
Petitioner Dario L. Cannon appeals the denial of his habeas petition, alleging
that the Alameda County Superior Court failed to properly conduct the inquiry
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds, Senior United States District
Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
required by Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), after the prosecution
exercised peremptory strikes against three minority veniremembers. Cannon
further alleges that the trial court erred when finding that the reasons offered by the
prosecution for the strikes were race-neutral. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
1. The California Court of Appeal reasonably ruled that the trial court
applied the proper legal standards established by the United States Supreme Court.
The trial court’s references to California cases did not taint the analysis, as our
review of the record reveals that the trial court did not ignore Batson’s third step.
See Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162, 165, 171-72 (2005). Further, the trial
court expressly found that the prosecutor was “truthful” in describing her race-
neutral reasons for the strikes. No clearly established precedent required the trial
court to do more when analyzing a Batson challenge. See, e.g., id.; Snyder v.
Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472, 477-79, 485-86 (2008).
2. Nor has Cannon shown that the California Court of Appeal was
unreasonable in deferring to the trial court’s judgment in light of the evidence
presented. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). Our review is “doubly deferential,” in that
we must uphold the ruling unless it was “objectively unreasonable” to conclude
that substantial evidence supported the trial court’s credibility determination. See
2
Briggs v. Grounds, 682 F.3d 1165, 1170 (9th Cir. 2012). Because the record
supports the conclusion that the prosecution’s strikes did not rest on an
impermissible ground, the state appellate court was not “objectively unreasonable
in concluding that [the] trial court’s credibility determination was supported by
substantial evidence.” Id.
3. All remaining issues on which a certificate of appealability was granted
other than those pertaining to the three veniremembers have been waived by
Cannon’s failure to argue them in the opening brief on appeal. Styers v. Schriro,
547 F.3d 1026, 1028 n.3 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
3