Alan Daniels v. Robert Hildreth

MEMORANDUM

Alan Daniels appeals the district court’s denial of his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we look to the last reasoned state court decision to determine whether it was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, Federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d); Cook v. Schriro, 538 F.3d 1000, 1015 (9th Cir.2008). We affirm.

The Nevada Supreme Court’s rejection of Daniels’ misjoinder claim was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, Supreme Court precedent. Daniels argues that he was denied a fair trial by the trial court allowing the robberies of the two bars to be tried in one case and denying his motion to sever. But evidence of the Pepe Muldoon’s robbery would have been admissible in a separate trial of the Inn Zone robbery, and vice versa, as the two crimes were part of the same “common plan or scheme.” See Nev.Rev.Stat. § 48.045(2); see also Fed.R.Evid. 404(b). And the strength of the State’s evidence of the Inn Zone robbery was not significantly stronger than that of the Pepe Muldoon’s robbery. See Sandoval v. Calderon, 241 F.3d 765, 773 (9th Cir.2001) (finding lack of prejudicial joinder given strength…