ROGERS v. SOSS (2019)

MEMORANDUM *

Christopher Rogers appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253.

The California Court of Appeal did not unreasonably apply Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), in concluding that, taking the facts in the light most favorable to the prosecution, there was sufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation, see People v. Rogers, 2013 WL 870617, at *3–4 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 11, 2013). The court reasonably concluded that the jury could have reasonably found that Rogers engaged in planning because Rogers knew the victim, armed himself with a gun, and committed the crime in a secluded area, and that Rogers acted deliberately because he shot the victim from a close range. See id.

The California Court of Appeal held that Rogers forfeited his prosecutorial misconduct claims by failing to make a contemporaneous objection at trial, see id. at *4, and California’s contemporaneous objection rule is an adequate and independent state ground that precludes federal habeas review, see Paulino v. Castro, 371 F.3d 1083, 1093 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 729–30, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991). We reject Rogers’s argument that his procedural default should be excused due to ineffective assistance of counsel because Rogers has not shown that he was prejudiced by his attorney’s performance. See Vansickel v. White, 166 F.3d 953, 958 (9th Cir. 1999). Rogers’s reliance on Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1, 132 S.Ct. 1309, 182 L.Ed.2d 272 (2012), is inapposite because Rogers does not bring an independent constitutional claim based on ineffective assistance of counsel.

AFFIRMED.