Chavez

MEMORANDUM **

Dimas Clemente Chavez appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition seeking relief from his California state conviction. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2254, and we reverse and remand.

The California Court of Appeal’s decision 1 “involved an unreasonable application of [ ] clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court” 2 in Batson v. Kentucky. 3 In Johnson v. California, 4 a case decided after the district court rendered its decision, the United States Supreme Court held that the standard the California courts had been applying since 1994 for a prima facie showing of racial discrimination in jury selection (and, thus, the standard that they applied in this case) was incompatible with Batson, 5 In Williams v. Runnels, 6 this court held that the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson applied retroactively in habeas cases. 7 Accordingly, it applies to this case. Thus, we must review the California Court of Appeal’s decision without the deference afforded by § 2254(d).

Reviewing the decision de novo, it is clear that the petitioner established a pri *564 ma facie case of discrimination. 9 We cannot…