Salvador Renteria v. Derral Adams

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

1. Absent a defendant’s consent, a trial court may permissibly declare a mistrial only in cases where “ ‘manifest necessity justifies a discharge of the jury.” Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497, 509 , 98 S.Ct. 824 , 54 L.Ed.2d 717 (1978). However, a “mistrial premised upon the trial judge’s belief that the jury is unable to reach a verdict [is] ... considered the classic basis for a proper mistrial.” Id. While a trial judge may not act “irrationally or irresponsibly” in declaring a mistrial, the declaration will be upheld so long as it is the result of the trial judge’s exercise of “sound discretion.” Id. at 514 , 98 S.Ct. 824 .

Here, the California Court of Appeal reasonably applied clearly established federal law when it denied Petitioner’s claim that the trial court improperly declared a mistrial. We note that the Supreme Court has never “overturned a trial court’s declaration of a mistrial after a jury was unable to reach a verdict on the ground that the manifest necessity standard had not been met.”…