TRUJILLO v. MADDEN (2021)

MEMORANDUM ***

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, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 1188, 1192, 200 L.Ed.2d 530 (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.