FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
DEC 08 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM F. JENSEN, No. 16-35467
Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-01094-JCC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MIKE OBENLAND,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 6, 2017**
Seattle, Washington
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
William Jensen appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of
habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we
affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
1. Jensen argues the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to a
public trial by excluding spectators during voir dire. The Washington Court of
Appeals denied the claim because it was supported only by Jensen’s own affidavit
and the Washington Supreme Court denied review.
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, we may only
reverse the state court’s adjudication of Jensen’s claim if the state court
proceedings: “(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an
unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the
Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on
an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the
State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Even accepting all of the
allegations in his affidavit as true, Jensen offers only his uncorroborated
observations that a person appeared at the doorway to the courtroom and did not
enter. He speculates that entry was barred. He does not allege the trial court
ordered the courtroom closed, nor attempt to support his argument with affidavits
from attorneys, court staff, or veniremembers who were present in the courtroom.
Jensen’s assertion that the court was closed to the public therefore remains entirely
speculative. We cannot say the state court’s conclusion that Jensen failed to
establish a courtroom closure was unreasonable, see Hurles v. Ryan, 752 F.3d 768,
2
778 (9th Cir. 2014), or that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing, see Sully v.
Ayres, 725 F.3d 1057, 1075-76 (9th Cir. 2013).
2. The state court’s conclusion that Jensen failed to meet his burden to show
he was mentally incompetent to stand trial was not unreasonable. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d)(2). The Washington Court of Appeals found no evidence there was any
question about his competency at the time of trial, and concluded that a psychiatric
report prepared five years after trial was insufficient to entitle Jensen to relief. We
affirm the district court’s denial of Jensen’s competency claim.
3. Because we conclude Jensen has not “made a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), we decline to expand the
certificate of appealability to include his double jeopardy claim.
AFFIRMED.
3