Jose Ornelas v. Gary Sandor

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Jose Luis Ornelas appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review a district court’s denial of a habeas petition de novo, see Doody v. Ryan, 649 F.3d 986, 1001 (9th Cir.2011) (en banc), and we affirm.

First, Petitioner alleges that two comments made by the jury’s foreperson during deliberations constituted juror misconduct and therefore deprived him of his constitutional rights to due process, cross examination, and a fair jury trial. Because the California Supreme Court summarily denied the appeal, this Court must “look through” that summary denial to the reasoning of the California Court of Appeal. Cannedy v. Adams, 706 F.3d 1148, 1157-58 (9th Cir.), amended on denial of reh’g en banc, 733 F.3d 794 (9th Cir.2013). On direct appeal, the California Court of Appeal concluded that neither comment constituted prejudicial misconduct. We find that the Court of Appeal’s decision was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established law, nor was it based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in…