Thomas Applegate v. Kathleen Dickenson

MEMORANDUM

Thomas Arthur Applegate appeals the district court’s September 24, 2012 denial of his petition for habeas corpus. We affirm.

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), federal courts must refuse to grant habeas relief unless the last reasoned state court decision was (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) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). Neither party has claimed that the last reasoned state court decision in this case, the decision of the California Court of Appeal, was “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(2). Therefore, the only question before us is whether the California Court of Appeal’s decision 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).

The Supreme Court has established that incorrect or vague jury…