David Castillo v. Connie Gipson

MEMORANDUM

David Martinez Castillo appeals the dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and affirm.

1. Castillo contends that the trial court failed to conduct the “sensitive inquiry” required under Batson’s third step. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 93 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). But we need not address whether the trial court properly conducted that analysis, for this Court reviews the last reasoned state-court decision that adjudicated Castillo’s Batson claim. See Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 803 , 111 S.Ct. 2590 , 115 L.Ed.2d 706 (1991). Here, that decision is the opinion of the California Court of Appeal affirming Castillo’s conviction on direct review. Because the California Court of Appeal fully adjudicated Castillo’s Batson claim and conducted the “sensitive inquiry” required at step three of that analysis, we conclude that the California Court of Appeal’s decision was not “contrary to, or ... an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1).

2. Castillo further claims that the California…