Soton Chan v. James Yates

MEMORANDUM

Soton Chan appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his California convictions for second degree murder and attempted second degree murder. We affirm.

Chan argues that the prosecutor committed misconduct by commenting that one witness was intoxicated while on the stand and another witness had a trembling lip while testifying. He also claims that the trembling lip comments were vouching and that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the comments during trial.

The state court ruled that Chan procedurally defaulted his prosecutorial misconduct claims by failing to object at trial. Because this is an independent and adequate state ground, federal habeas relief was properly denied. Loveland v. Hatcher, 231 F.3d 640, 643-44 (9th Cir.2000); Rich v. Calderon, 187 F.3d 1064, 1070 (9th Cir.1999).

Likewise, because Chan has not established that counsel was ineffective, he has not shown cause and prejudice to excuse his procedural default. The state court reasonably applied Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), by holding that defense counsel made a reasonable…