DARIO CANNON V. GERALD JANDA, No. 15-15374 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on August 5, 2016.
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 09 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DARIO L. CANNON, No. 15-15374 Petitioner - Appellant, v. D.C. No. 3:13-cv-02419-TEH AMENDED MEMORANDUM* GERALD JANDA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Thelton E. Henderson, Senior District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted July 19, 2016 San Francisco, California Before: GRABER and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and EDMUNDS**, Senior District Judge. Petitioner Dario L. Cannon appeals the denial of his habeas petition, alleging that the Alameda County Superior Court failed to properly conduct the inquiry * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. The Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation. ** required by Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), after the prosecution exercised peremptory strikes against all seven minority veniremembers. On appeal, Cannon pursues only the Batson claim with respect to three potential jurors. Cannon further alleges that the trial court erred when finding that the reasons offered by the prosecution for the strikes were race-neutral. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 1. The California Court of Appeal reasonably ruled that the trial court applied the proper legal standards established by the United States Supreme Court. The trial court’s references to California cases did not taint the analysis, as our review of the record reveals that the trial court did not ignore Batson’s third step. See Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162, 165, 171-72 (2005). Further, the trial court expressly found that the prosecutor was “truthful” in describing her raceneutral reasons for the strikes. No clearly established precedent required the trial court to do more when analyzing a Batson challenge. See, e.g., id.; Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472, 477-79, 485-86 (2008). 2. Nor has Cannon shown that the California Court of Appeal was unreasonable in deferring to the trial court’s judgment in light of the evidence presented. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). Our review is “doubly deferential,” in that we must uphold the ruling unless it was “objectively unreasonable” to conclude 2 that substantial evidence supported the trial court’s credibility determination. See Briggs v. Grounds, 682 F.3d 1165, 1170 (9th Cir. 2012). Because the record supports the conclusion that the prosecution’s strikes did not rest on an impermissible ground, the state appellate court was not “objectively unreasonable in concluding that [the] trial court’s credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence.” Id. 3. All remaining issues on which a certificate of appealability was granted other than those pertaining to the three veniremembers have been waived by Cannon’s failure to argue them in the opening brief on appeal. Styers v. Schriro, 547 F.3d 1026, 1028 n.3 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
