Anthony Martinez v. James Yates

MEMORANDUM

Anthony Joe Martinez appeals from a judgment of the district court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the history of this case, we need not recount it here.

I

The district court properly concluded that Martinez is not entitled to habeas relief on his claim that his federal due process rights were violated by the trial court’s failure to sever for trial the criminal charges relating to two separate incidents.

A federal court may grant a habeas petition if the state court’s adjudication “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved 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). There is no clearly established Supreme Court precedent dictating when a trial in state court must be severed. Runningeagle v. Ryan, 686 F.3d 758, 774 (9th Cir.2012) (“[Tjhere is no clearly established federal law requiring severance of criminal trials in state court even when the defendants assert mutually antagonistic defenses.”).

The Supreme Court noted in a footnote in United States v. Lane…