Dolatao Zambrano v. K. Prosper

Good Law
481 F. App'x 300
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 22, 201211-55693California864 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Respondent Warden K. Prosper appeals from the district court’s grant of a conditional writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 , to Petitioner Dolatao Saldana Zambrano. On de novo review, Stanley v. Schriro, 598 F.3d 612, 617 (9th Cir.2010), we affirm.

Because this petition was filed after April 24, 1996, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996 governs our review. AEDPA imposes a “highly deferential” standard of review and “demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt.” Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 24 , 123 S.Ct. 357 , 154 L.Ed.2d 279 (2002) (per curiam). Under AEDPA, we may not grant federal habeas relief unless (as relevant here) the state court’s decision involved an unreasonable application of federal law as clearly established in holdings of the Supreme Court. Harrington v. Richter, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 770, 785 , 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011).

The parties, and we, agree that the key Supreme Court precedent is Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 , 106 S.Ct. 2464 , 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986). There, the Supreme Court set out the standard for deciding when prosecutorial misconduct, such as an improper closing…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.