Jesse Vale v. Connie Gibson

MEMORANDUM

Jesse J. Vale (“Vale”) appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The district court reviewed the California Court of Appeal’s decision to affirm the trial court’s denial of Vale’s objection to disallow the prosecution’s use of its peremptory challenges as race-based under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). See People v. Vale, No. H037358, 2013 WL 5278501 , at *7 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 19, 2013).

We have jurisdiction pursuant • to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review the district court’s denial of Vale’s habeas petition de novo. Lopez v. Thompson, 202 F.3d 1110, 1116 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). We review the trial court’s denial of Vale’s Batson objection de novo because the California Court of Appeal’s decision was dependent on an antecedent unreasonable application of federal law, and thus not entitled to deference under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). See Shirley v. Yates, 807 F.3d 1090, 1101 (9th Cir. 2015).

The trial court did not err by finding that Vale failed to make out a prima facie Batson case at step one because, considering the totality of the circumstances, Vale did not raise an inference of…