Frank Harris v. Martin D. Biter

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner, Frank Harris, appeals the denial of habeas relief from his California state convictions for first degree murder and first degree attempted murder. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, we affirm.

1. Harris raises two claims on appeal. He asserts the prosecution violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), by failing to disclose that a witness, Jesse Polk, was motivated by a reward offer. He also asserts the prosecution violated Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 , 79 S.Ct. 1173 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959), by knowingly presenting Polk’s false testimony that he was not motivated by the reward. These claims were previously presented to the California Court of Appeals which summarily denied relief. The California Supreme Court denied the petition for review.

2. Pursuant to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), a federal court may not grant habeas relief for a claim adjudicated on the merits in state court unless the prior adjudication resulted in a decision that was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the…