Valencia

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Valencia appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We review the denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus de novo. Wade v. Terhune, 202 F.3d 1190, 1194 (9th Cir.2000). Valencia argues that the California Court of Appeal incorrectly rejected his claim under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 96 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). Although AEDPA ordinarily requires deference to state court decisions, 1 we review Valencia’s constitutional claim de novo, because the California Court of Appeal applied the more stringent standard of People v. Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d 258, 280 , 148 Cal.Rptr. 890 , 583 P.2d 748 (1978), rather than the “reasonable inference” test of Batson, 476 U.S. at 96 . See Wade, 202 F.3d at 1197 .

To establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination based on a prosecutor’s peremptory strikes, Valencia must show (1) that he is a member of a cognizable racial group; (2) that the prosecutor exercised peremptory challenges to remove members of that racial group from the venire; and (3) that the facts and relevant circumstances raise an inference that the prosecutor excluded venire…