Leonard Hoffman v. Frank Luna

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAN 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
LEONARD HOFFMAN, No. 09-35083
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:06-cv-00272-JWS
v.
MEMORANDUM *
FRANK LUNA, Warden, R.R.C.C.,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
John W. Sedwick, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 12, 2010**
Seattle, Washington
Before: KLEINFELD, TASHIMA and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Leonard J. Hoffman (“Hoffman”) appeals the district court’s denial of his
petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Hoffman was convicted in Alaska state court
of various criminal offenses including assault, sexual assault, arson, witness
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
tampering, and interference with an official proceeding. On direct appeal, the
Court of Appeals of Alaska held that the trial judge erred by not telling the lawyers
about the jury note, but concluded that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable
doubt. After the Court of Appeals of Alaska denied Hoffman’s state petition for a
writ of habeas corpus, Hoffman filed a federal petition. The district court denied
Hoffman’s petition because the Court of Appeals of Alaska’s decision on direct
appeal was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established
federal law.
It was reasonable for the Alaska state court to conclude that the ex parte
communications between the trial judge and the jury had no “adverse influence on
the jury’s decision to listen to the testimony of the requested witnesses” and that
“there was no reasonable possibility that” telling the jury the length of the
requested testimony “discouraged or deterred the jury from pursuing its request.”
Hoffman v. State, 950 P.2d 141, 146 (Alaska Ct. App. 1997). Therefore, applying
the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, we must defer to the state
court’s determination. See Mitchell v. Esparza, 540 U.S. 12, 17–18 (2003). The
district court properly denied federal habeas relief.
AFFIRMED.
2