FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
NOV 01 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JESSE J. VALE, No. 15-15696
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:14-cv-1588-PJH
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CONNIE GIBSON, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Phyllis J. Hamilton, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 21, 2016
San Francisco, California
Before: BEA and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI,** Judge.
Jesse J. Vale (“Vale”) appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a
writ of habeas corpus. The district court reviewed the California Court of Appeal’s
decision to affirm the trial court’s denial of Vale’s objection to disallow the
prosecution’s use of its peremptory challenges as race-based under Batson v.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge for the United States Court of
International Trade, sitting by designation.
Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). See People v. Vale, No. H037358, 2013 WL
5278501, at *7 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 19, 2013).
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review the district
court’s denial of Vale’s habeas petition de novo. Lopez v. Thompson, 202 F.3d
1110, 1116 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). We review the trial court’s denial of Vale’s
Batson objection de novo because the California Court of Appeal’s decision was
dependent on an antecedent unreasonable application of federal law, and thus not
entitled to deference under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). See Shirley v. Yates, 807 F.3d
1090, 1101 (9th Cir. 2015).
The trial court did not err by finding that Vale failed to make out a prima
facie Batson case at step one because, considering the totality of the circumstances,
Vale did not raise an inference of discrimination. Although the trial court allowed
the prosecutor to state his justifications for striking the jurors in question, we may
affirm the trial court’s Batson step one determination without considering the
validity of the prosecutor’s reasons for exercising his peremptory challenges. See
United States v. Guerrero, 595 F.3d 1059, 1063 (9th Cir. 2010).
AFFIRMED.
2