Mitchell Tatmon v. John Haviland

MEMORANDUM

Defendant Mitchell Tatmon appeals from the district court’s denial of his habe-as corpus petition, in which he argued that the prosecutor committed prosecutorial misconduct by stating three times in his opening argument that he could talk about “only one” prior criminal incident. The facts of the case are known to the parties. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.

We review a district court’s denial of a habeas petition de novo, under the standards set forth in AEDPA. Tak Sun Tan v. Runnels, 413 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2005). Thus, we may grant habeas relief only if the last reasoned decision of the state court is “(1) ‘contrary to’ or an ‘unreasonable application of[ ] clearly established Federal Law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,’ or (2) based on an ‘unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.’ ” Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1), (2)). In analyzing a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, the Supreme Court asks (1) “whether the prosecutor’s remarks were improper,” and (2) “whether the prosecutor[’s] comments ‘so infected the trial with…