Mendez

MEMORANDUM *

The facts and procedural posture of the case are known to the parties, and we do not repeat them here. We review the district court’s denial of the petition for writ of habeas corpus de novo. Robinson v. Ignacio, 360 F.3d 1044, 1055 (9th Cir. 2004).

Mendez contends that the California courts violated his rights to due process, equal protection, and protection against double jeopardy, by failing to retroactively apply the California Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Cortez, 18 Cal.4th 1223 , 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 733 , 960 P.2d 537 (1998). Because Mendez did not raise his claim in the California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court denied the claim without comment, we conduct an independent review of the record to discern whether the denial was objectively unreasonable. Himes v. Thompson, 336 F.3d 848, 852-53 (9th Cir.2003).

In Cortez , the California Supreme Court did not explicitly state whether its ruling would be retroactive under state law. However, after its decision in Cortez , the court issued a “postcard denial” of Mendez’s habeas petition. Because a summary rejection of a habeas petition by the California Supreme Court is considered a decision on…