Manuel Madril v. K. Harrington

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Manuel Louis Madril appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review a district court’s denial of a habeas corpus petition de novo, see Stanley v. Cullen, 633 F.3d 852, 859 (9th Cir.2011), and we affirm.

Madril contends that the state trial court erred by instructing the jury pursuant to CALJIC No. 2.11.5 that it should not speculate whether another person involved in the crime is being prosecuted. To the extent Madril argues that the instruction was faulty under state law, his claim is not cognizable on federal habeas review. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 71-72 , 112 S.Ct. 475 , 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991). Further, the record shows that the instruction did not violate Madril’s federal constitutional rights. When, as here, the trial court also instructs the jury regarding witness credibility and accomplices, “there is no reasonable likelihood that the jury understood CALJIC No. 2.11.5 to bar consideration of [the witness’s] motives for testifying.” Allen v. Woodford, 395 F.3d 979, 996 (9th Cir.2005). Accordingly, the California Court of…