FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 06 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SAMMY WILLIAMS, No. 07-15385
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. CV-06-00275-PHX-EHC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
PERKINS and TERRY GODDARD,
Attorney General State of Arizona,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Earl H. Carroll, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 4, 2010**
San Francisco, California
Before: HUG, RYMER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Sammy Williams appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus
petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
I
Williams argues that his due process rights were violated because perjured
testimony was admitted at trial. He concedes that he did not raise this issue on
direct appeal or in his first petition for post-conviction relief, and, as such, it is
procedurally defaulted. See Smith v. Baldwin, 510 F.3d 1127, 1139 (9th Cir. 2007)
(“On federal habeas review under AEDPA, generally, we may not reach the merits
of procedurally defaulted claims.”). Yet, Williams submits that he suffered a
fundamental miscarriage of justice, and thus, we should review his claim. We
disagree. As Williams has presented no new evidence to establish actual
innocence, he cannot establish a fundamental miscarriage of justice. See Schlup v.
Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 324 (1995); Johnson v. Knowles, 541 F.3d 933, 935 (9th Cir.
2008). Additionally, Williams’s claim that James Harris’s testimony was perjured
is not self-evident. Harris was subjected to cross-examination and questions of
credibility or inconsistencies in his testimony were matters for the jury to consider.
See United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 313 (1998).
II
The Arizona Court of Appeals’s determination that Williams was not denied
his right to a jury of his peers is neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable
-2-
application of, Supreme Court precedent. The Court has been explicit that
explanations for peremptory strikes need not be “persuasive, or even plausible.”
Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 767 (1995). “Unless a discriminatory intent is
inherent in the prosecutor’s explanation, the reasons offered will be deemed race
neutral.” Id. At trial, the prosecutor explained that he struck three Hispanic venire
members on the basis of work history, lack of faith in law enforcement, age, and
personality. The Arizona Court of Appeals’s conclusion that the explanations were
not inherently discriminatory was not objectively unreasonable. See Rice v.
Collins, 546 U.S. 333, 341-42 (2006).
III
Nor was the Arizona Court of Appeals’s conclusion that the victim’s
improperly admitted hearsay was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt an
objectively unreasonable application of clearly established law to the facts of this
case. See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967) (indicating that reversal
of a criminal conviction is not required if a federal constitutional error is “harmless
beyond a reasonable doubt”). The evidence against Williams was overwhelming,
and the admitted hearsay was of little probative value. See United States v. Pena-
Gutierrez, 222 F.3d 1080, 1089 (9th Cir. 2000). Both Harris and Carissa Morones
-3-
testified that Williams was the shooter, that he used a .40 caliber Smith and
Wesson semiautomatic gun, and that the last time they saw the weapon was at
Williams’s cousin’s house in Tucson. Any questions about their credibility was a
determination for the jury. See Scheffer, 523 U.S. at 313. Moreover, other
testimony, apart from the victim’s statements, corroborated Harris’s and Morones’s
testimony. A bartender at Bandaids testified that Morones had mentioned she was
going to do “a private dance for this old man . . . and get as much money as she
could, take him for what she could on that.” The bartender also testified that
Morones had told her that Morones’s boyfriend would “be on the side to take care
of anything that might go wrong,” and that Morones had told her it might involve a
gun, “if it was necessary.” A resident of the neighborhood testified that he saw “a
Hispanic male in the five seven, five eight range” at the victim’s car window
attempting to peel away sheet metal from the hood . . . .” The victim’s statements
were merely cumulative to the other testimony presented at trial.
AFFIRMED.
-4-