Oliver Clavano v. Tony Hedgepath

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Oliver Zosa Clavano appeals from the district court’s denial of his federal habeas petition, raising a claim that the state trial judge unconstitutionally coerced the jury’s verdict. Reviewing de novo, Lambert v. Blodgett, 393 F.3d 943, 964 (9th Cir.2004), we affirm.

Under the deferential standard of review, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1), Harrington v. Richter, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 770, 785 , 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011), the district court properly denied habeas relief. The state appellate court correctly identified and applied the constitutional rule announced in Lowenfield v. Phelps, 484 U.S. 231, 241 , 108 S.Ct. 546 , 98 L.Ed.2d 568 (1988). Because the rule is a general one, Weaver v. Thompson, 197 F.3d 359, 366 (9th Cir.1999), the state court had “more leeway” in its application, Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 664 , 124 S.Ct. 2140 , 158 L.Ed.2d 938 (2004). Whatever we might have decided had the case arisen on direct review, we cannot conclude that the state court’s application of Lowenfield here was “unreasonable.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1).

When the trial judge inquired as to whether more time would assist the jury, at least two jurors gave equivocal…