Travis Larimer v. James Yates

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Travis Rex Larimer (“Larimer”) appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2258, and we affirm.

We review de novo a district court’s denial of a petition for habeas corpus brought by a state prisoner. Hurles v. Ryan, 650 F.3d 1301, 1308-09 (9th Cir. 2011). In order to grant Larimer’s petition, we must find that the state court’s adjudication of a claim “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” or that the state court’s conclusions were “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of the case, we do not recount it in detail here.

As the State concedes, the use of Larimer’s post-Miranda silence at trial violated Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 619 , 96 S.Ct. 2240 , 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976) (holding that “the use for impeachment purposes of…