Bernal

MEMORANDUM ***

Ruben Bernal, a California state prisoner, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his jury conviction for murder and attempted murder. Bernal challenges both the California Court of Appeal’s factual findings and its harmless error analysis.

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, (“AEDPA”), a state court’s factual findings carry a presumption of correctness that may be overcome only when a petitioner presents clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (e)(1); see, e.g., Bockting v. Bayer, 505 F.3d 973, 981 (9th Cir.2007). Bernal provides no evidence to overturn the court’s factual finding that his restraints were not visible at trial. Contra Dyas v. Poole, 317 F.3d 934 (9th Cir.2003) (per curiam) (finding prejudice particularly likely where an evidentiary hearing revealed that one juror and one potential juror had been able to see the defendant’s shackles from the jury box).

Under AEDPA, habeas relief is proper only where the state court’s adjudication of the merits of the habeas claim was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law,…