William New v. Domingo Uribe, Jr.

MEMORANDUM

Appellant William New (New) appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

1. In concluding that the trial court did not err in holding that the justification for the delay outweighed any prejudice to New, see People v. New, 163 Cal.App.4th 442, 77 Cal.Rptr.3d 503, 520-21 (2008), the state appellate court did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law. The relevant Supreme Court precedents explicitly decline to set out a clear test for balancing justification against prejudice, asserting that such balancing requires case-by-case consideration. See United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 796-97 , 97 S.Ct. 2044 , 52 L.Ed.2d 752 (1977); United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 324-25 , 92 S.Ct. 455 , 30 L.Ed.2d 468 (1971). In light of the lack of a clear test, we cannot say that the state court applied Supreme Court law in a manner that was objectively unreasonable in finding that the justification here outweighed the prejudice. See Harrington v. Richter, — U.S. — —, 131 S.Ct. 770, 785-86 , 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011); see also Cudjo v. Ayers, 698 F.3d 752, 761 (9th Cir.2012) (“[T]he only definitive source of clearly established…