Brandon Armitage v. Kenneth Clark

MEMORANDUM

Brandon Armitage (“Armitage”) appeals from the District Court’s denial of his ha-beas petition challenging his California conviction for burglary. Armitage asserts that his case was submitted to the jury on alternate theories, one of which was unconstitutional, and that the California Court of Appeal’s rejection of his argument was contrary to clearly established federal law. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and we affirm.

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), federal habeas corpus relief is barred unless a state court’s adjudication of a claim was either (1) “ ‘contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,’ ” or (2) “ ‘based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State Court proceeding.’ ” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 , 131 S.Ct. 770, 783-84 , 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1)-(2)).

Armitage contends that the jury was permitted to premise its conviction on a determination that his admitted possession of methamphetamine constituted the…