Alejando Aviles-Perez v. Robert Legrand, 669 F. App'x 916

Defendant Alejandro Aviles-Perez appealed the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his state conviction.
Central claims: (1) Batson challenge to four prosecution peremptory strikes as racially motivated; (2) ineffective assistance for trial counsel’s alleged failure to press further Batson argument; (3) constitutional error from admission of out-of-court statements the victim’s deceased mother made to the victim.
Nevada trial court overruled the Batson challenge; the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed that factual finding and concluded no prejudice from counsel’s conduct and no constitutional error in admitting the statements.
Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo, but applied AEDPA deference to the Nevada Supreme Court’s factual and legal determinations under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
The panel held the Nevada courts’ determinations were reasonable: the peremptory-strike justifications were supported by the record, counsel’s omission caused no reasonable probability of a different outcome, and statements were not clearly testimonial under then-controlling law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prosecution’s peremptory strikes violated Batson	Aviles: strikes were racially motivated and lacked race-neutral justification	State: offered race-neutral reasons for each strike supported by voir dire record	Court: Batson ruling was a factual finding entitled to AEDPA deference; Nevada courts’ conclusion reasonable
Whether counsel’s failure to press Batson argument was prejudicial (Strickland)	Aviles: additional Batson argument could have changed outcome	State: no reasonable probability of different outcome given trial court’s findings and record	Court: no prejudice shown; no unreasonable application of Strickland
Whether admission of the deceased mother’s out-of-court statements violated the Confrontation Clause	Aviles: statements were testimonial and thus inadmissible without confrontation	State: statements were not clearly testimonial and not primarily a substitute for trial testimony	Court: Nevada court’s determination reasonable under then-open question about when non-law-enforcement statements are testimonial
Whether federal habeas relief is warranted under AEDPA standards	Aviles: state rulings were unreasonable applications of federal law/facts	State: state decisions were reasonable and supported by record	Court: affirmed denial of habeas; AEDPA deference applies and was satisfied

Cheney v. Washington, 614 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of habeas denial with discussion of prejudice analysis)
Williams v. Rhoades, 354 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2004) (Batson factual findings entitled to presumption of correctness)
Sifuentes v. Brazelton, 825 F.3d 506 (9th Cir. 2016) (standards for evaluating plausibility of prosecutors’ Batson explanations)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective-assistance prejudice and performance standards)
Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (2011) (analysis of when statements to non-law-enforcement are testimonial)