Anthony Hernandez Navarro v. Kim Holland, 698 F. App'x 541

Navarro appealed denial of his habeas petition challenging a state jury conviction; Ninth Circuit reviews de novo and affirms.
Navarro contended the state appellate court unreasonably upheld the trial court’s adverse credibility finding against a key witness.
He also argued the trial court violated due process by denying his motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
The state courts relied on factors including the witness’s criminal history and incentive not to be labeled a snitch to support credibility findings.
The state trial court accepted the proffered new testimony but concluded it would not likely produce acquittal; the appellate court affirmed.
Navarro sought expansion of the certificate of appealability; the panel declined because reasonable jurists would not disagree with the district court’s sufficiency-of-the-evidence resolution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether state appellate court unreasonably upheld trial court’s adverse credibility finding	Navarro: appellate decision was objectively unreasonable under §2254(d)(2)	State: credibility findings are entitled to deference; record supported adverse credibility (criminal history, snitch incentive)	Held: Affirmed; petitioner failed to show the state court’s finding was unreasonable; federal courts defer to trial-court witness credibility
Whether denial of new trial violated due process because of newly discovered evidence	Navarro: new evidence would probably have led to acquittal and thus denial violated due process	State: court properly assessed and concluded new evidence would not probably produce acquittal	Held: Affirmed; state court’s decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law
Whether certificate of appealability should be expanded	Navarro: sought expansion under Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1(e)	State: district court’s resolution of sufficiency claim was correct	Held: Denied; reasonable jurists would not disagree with district court

Hall v. Haws, 861 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 2017) (standard for de novo review of habeas petition decision)
Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2004) (federal habeas courts cannot overturn state fact-finding unless it is unreasonable)
Marshall v. Lonberger, 459 U.S. 422 (U.S. 1983) (federal courts must defer to state trial court witness credibility determinations)
Mann v. Ryan, 828 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (emphasizing deference to trial-court credibility findings)
Murray v. Schriro, 745 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2014) (discussing standards for habeas review and scope of prior decisions)
Quigg v. Crist, 616 F.2d 1107 (9th Cir. 1980) (newly discovered evidence warrants federal habeas relief only if it bears on constitutionality of detention)
Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293 (U.S. 1963) (standard for habeas relief based on new evidence)
Gordon v. Duran, 895 F.2d 610 (9th Cir. 1990) (new evidence must probably have resulted in acquittal to support habeas relief)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (U.S. 2000) (standard for issuance and expansion of certificate of appealability)