Bradley Wright v. Jeff MacOmber

facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” Sherman v.

Gittere, 92 F.4th 868, 875 (9th Cir. 2024) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)–(2))

(quotation marks omitted). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291

and 2253(a). We affirm.

1. Petitioner contends that the California Court of Appeals (“CCA”)

based its decision to affirm the state trial court’s ruling on an unreasonable

determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in his case. We must

review the decision using the same framework used by the CCA. Brumfield v.

1 We grant Petitioner’s motion for judicial notice of his expert’s proposed presentation and transcript of his expert’s testimony in a prior case.

2 Cain, 576 U.S. 305, 313 (2015). “We may not characterize . . . state-court factual

determinations as unreasonable ‘merely because [we] would have reached a

different conclusion in the first instance.’” Id. at 313–14 (alteration in original)

(quoting Wood v. Allen, 558 U.S. 290, 301 (2010)). If “‘[r]easonable minds

reviewing the record might disagree’ about the finding in question, ‘on habeas

review that does not suffice to supersede the trial court’s . . .…