Frank Charles v. T. Felker

MEMORANDUM and ORDER

Petitioner-appellant Frank Charles appeals the district court’s denial of his claim under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), raised in his federal habeas corpus petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a), and we affirm.

We review de novo a district court’s denial of a habeas corpus petition and review for clear error the district court’s factual findings. Ali v. Hickman, 584 F.3d 1174, 1181 (9th Cir.2009). Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), we may grant habeas relief only if (1) a state court’s decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law”; or (2) “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1)-(2). For AEDPA purposes, we look to the state court’s last reasoned decision, which in this case is the California Court of Appeal’s opinion affirming Charles’ conviction on direct appeal.

Batson established a three-step process for evaluating a defendant’s objection to a peremptory challenge: “First, the…