Jose Valdez v. Ken Clark
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Jose Valdez appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his California convictions for witness intimidation, brandishing a firearm, and street terrorism. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
The state court reasonably applied Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), when it denied the claim that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a juror bias claim on direct appeal. Because there was no specific evidence that any juror was actually biased, the state court reasonably held that Valdez failed to prove both prongs of the Strickland test.
The state court reasonably applied Jackson v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), to hold that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions for dissuading a witness with a threat of force in violation of California Penal Code § 136.1(a)(1) and brandishing a firearm in violation of California Penal Code § 417(a)(2). Evidence at trial established that two individuals, Moreno and Gonzalez, had been stabbed and beaten by members of Valdez’s criminal street gang, and the victims were…