Cervantes

MEMORANDUM *

Israel Cervantes appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 .

Cervantes contends that use of his prior nonjury juvenile adjudications to enhance his sentence under California’s Three Strikes Law violated his due process and jury trial rights. Both contentions fail. The California court’s decision to use Cervantes’ prior juvenile adjudications as predicate offenses in calculating his three strikes was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. See Boyd v. Newland, 393 F.3d 1008, 1017 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that the “use of [a] juvenile adjudication as a sentencing enhancement was [neither] contrary to,” *691 nor did it “involve[ ] an unreasonable application of, Supreme Court precedent.”).

Relying on Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 , 92 S.Ct. 495 , 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971), Cervantes also asserts that the use of his juvenile adjudications to enhance his sentence deprived him of due process, because he was assured that those adjudications would not be used against him. However, a critical distinction between Santobello and Cervantes’ case is that, as the California Court of…