MARTIN SALAZAR CASTRO V. RENEE BAKER, No. 20-15274 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 23 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARTIN SALAZAR CASTRO, Petitioner-Appellant, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 20-15274 D.C. No. 2:16-cv-01237-MMD-EJY v. RENEE BAKER, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF NEVADA, MEMORANDUM* Respondents-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Miranda M. Du, Chief District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 19, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: McKEOWN and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and MOLLOY,*** District Judge. Martin Salazar Castro appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. * 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). *** The Honorable Donald W. Molloy, United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his 2010 conviction for sexual assaults, attempted sexual assault, conspiracy to commit sexual assault, and kidnapping. Assuming, without deciding, that the state trial court improperly denied Castro’s motion to suppress, Castro has nonetheless failed to demonstrate that the admission of his statement had a “substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict” in light of the overwhelming evidence in support of his conviction. Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637–38 (1993). See Cunningham v. Wong, 704 F.3d 1143, 1165 (9th Cir. 2013) (denying habeas relief where the state court concluded that a defendant’s statement, in which he “did not actually confess to the crime,” was harmless, because the statement “at most” undermined the defendant’s credibility). The district court therefore properly denied Castro’s petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Because we do not reach the question of whether Castro’s statement was involuntary, Castro’s Motion to Expand the Record and Transmit Physical Exhibit, Dkt. 18, is DENIED as moot. AFFIRMED. 2

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.