Pizzagrani
Pizzagrani v. Lamarque
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
California state prisoner Robert Angelo Pizzagrani appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We review de novo, Beardslee v. Woodford, 358 F.3d 560, 568 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.
First, Pizzagrani contends that his due process right to trial by an impartial jury was violated. After reviewing the record of the hearing that the trial court held to investigate this claim, the California Court of Appeal concluded that any presumption of bias against Pizzagrani had been rebutted. See Rushen v. Spain, 464 U.S. 114, 119-20 , 104 S.Ct. 453 , 78 L.Ed.2d 267 (1983) (per curiam) (noting that “[p]ost-trial hearings are adequately tailored to” the task of investigating claims of juror partiality). We presume this finding is correct. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (e)(1); Spain, 464 U.S. at 120 , 104 S.Ct. 453 ; Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F.3d 992, 999-1000 (9th Cir.2004). Thus it was not unreasonable for the California Court of Appeal to conclude that Pizzagrani’s jury was impartial toward him. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1), (2); Spain, 464 U.S. at 119-21 , 104 S.Ct. 453 .