Felix Martinez v. L. Scribner

MEMORANDUM

Felix Cruz Martinez appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C § 2254. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

We agree with the district court that the California courts’ resolution of Martinez’s claim that coerced statements were improperly admitted at trial was not “contrary to, or [ ] an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” and did not “result 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)(1), (2).

Specifically, the California Court of Appeal’s determination that admission of the first statement was harmless under Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), because the jury could not have given any weight to the first statement, was reasonable in light of the jury’s factual findings and the substance of first statement. See Medina v. Hornung, 386 F.3d 872, 878-79 (9th Cir.2004).

Also, the California Court of Appeals reasonably determined that the second statement…