FREDDY TRUJILLO V. RAYMOND MADDEN, No. 19-55262 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 14 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FREDDY ANGEL TRUJILLO, Petitioner-Appellant, No. 19-55262 D.C. No. 2:17-cv-07188-ODW-JDE v. RAYMOND MADDEN, Warden, MEMORANDUM* Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Otis D. Wright II, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 12, 2021** Pasadena, California Before: M. SMITH and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and VRATIL,*** District Judge. * 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 Kathryn H. Vratil, United States District Judge for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. California prisoner Freddy Angel Trujillo appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We have jurisdiction pursuant to § 2253(a) and affirm. Like the district court, we decline to decide whether Trujillo’s claim is procedurally barred because his “petition clearly fails on the merits.” Flournoy v. Small, 681 F.3d 1000, 1004 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012). Applying de novo review, see Wilson v. Sellers, 138 S. Ct. 1188, 1192 (2018), the state trial court did not violate Trujillo’s due process rights when it refused to sever the four counts because the prosecution supported each conviction with strong evidence, and did not join a relatively weak case with a stronger one, see Sandoval v. Calderon, 241 F.3d 765, 772 (9th Cir. 2000). Therefore, Trujillo has not shown that any “impermissible joinder had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” Davis v. Woodford, 384 F.3d 628, 638 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Sandoval, 241 F.3d at 772). 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.