Henry

MEMORANDUM

Dalrick Aion Henry appeals the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We review the district court’s decision de novo. Burnett v. Lampert, 432 F.3d 996, 997 (9th Cir.2005). Because Henry’s petition was filed after the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AED-PA”) became effective we apply the deference AEDPA demands when a state court has previously resolved a claim on the merits. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 .

First, Henry alleges that his conviction violated the Constitution because his counsel failed to request and the trial court failed to give an accomplice testimony instruction pursuant to California Penal Code section 1111. Even if there were clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, making a conviction based on uncorroborated accomplice testimony unlawful, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1), none of Henry’s several challenges to this alleged error warrant habeas relief because any error arising from the absence of the instruction was harmless. See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637-38 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993); Henderson v. Kibbe, 431 U.S. 145, 154-55 , 97 S.Ct. 1730 , 52 L.Ed.2d…