Aron Wessel v. R. Barnes

MEMORANDUM

Aron Wessel appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his jury convictions stemming from the shooting of his sister’s ex-boyfriend. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

The California Court of Appeal’s decision rejecting Wessel’s prosecutorial misconduct claim was not “contrary to” plearly established federal law. Contrary to Wessel’s contention, the Court of Appeal’s decision did not “appl[y] a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in Supreme Court cases,” or “eonfront[] a set of facts materially indistinguishable from those at issue in a decision of the Supreme Court and, nevertheless, arrive[ ] at a result different from [the Court’s] precedent.” Moses v. Payne, 555 F.3d 742, 751 (9th Cir.2009) (amended opinion) (internal quotation marks omitted). Although the Court of Appeal may have arguably misstated the prosecutorial misconduct standard articulated in Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 , 106 S.Ct. 2464 , 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986), neither the reasoning nor the result of the Court of Appeal’s decision contradicts Supreme Court precedent because the state court did not, in fact,…