Michael Benson, Sr. v. Jeri Taylor
This text of 669 F. App'x 929 (Michael Benson, Sr. v. Jeri Taylor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Michael Benson appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habe-as petition challenging his felony murder conviction. We affirm the judgment of the district court for the reasons set forth in detail in the district court’s opinion dated June 8, 2015.
We agree with the district court that (1) Benson’s claims are not procedurally defaulted given the objections at trial and the fact that the Oregon Court of Appeals did not expressly invoke a procedural bar, see *930 Smith v. Or. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 736 F.3d 857, 860 (9th Cir. 2013); (2) the state trial court’s admission of certain statements was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968) and Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185, 118 S.Ct. 1151, 140 L.Ed.2d 294 (1998); and (3) the constitutional error was harmless given Benson’s own testimony, the testimony of Frank Perotte, and other corroborating evidence, see Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
669 F. App'x 929, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-benson-sr-v-jeri-taylor-ca9-2016.