Guy Rook v. Donald Holbrook

discussion of federal authority is not required to find that a state court adjudicated a

petitioner’s federal claim “on the merits.” See Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 8 (2002)

(per curiam) (holding that § 2254(d) “does not require citation of [federal] cases—

indeed, it does not even require awareness of [federal] cases, so long as neither the

reasoning nor the result of the state-court decision contradicts them”); Johnson v.

Williams, 568 U.S. 289, 299, 301 (2013) (reversing grant of habeas and holding that

“a state appellate court may regard its discussion of the state precedent as sufficient

to cover a claim based on the related federal right”).

Although our “strong” presumption “that the federal claim was adjudicated

on the merits” is not “irrebuttable,” id. at 301–02, Rook fails to rebut the

presumption. Rook argues that the Washington Court of Appeals failed to consider

the merits of his Eighth Amendment challenge on the grounds that the court erred in

holding that the Washington Constitution’s bar on cruel punishment is more

protective than the Eighth Amendment prohibition. For the reasons stated below,

we are not persuaded by this analysis of Washington law.…