Jesse Joe Crespin v. Brian Hawes, Warden

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The Honorable Jeremy Fogel, United States District Judge for the**
Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JESSE JOE CRESPIN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
BRIAN HAWES, WARDEN,
Respondent-Apellee.
No. 08-55556
D.C. No. 5:07-cv-01348-AG-MLG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United District Court
for the Central District of California
Andrew Guilford, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 9, 2010
Pasadena, California
Before: THOMAS and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges, and FOGEL, District
Judge**
Petitioner-Appellant Jesse Joe Crespin, a state prisoner, appeals the district
court's denial of his habeas petition, which raised a single claim under Batson v.
Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
MAR 01 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

Wheeler is the California state law equivalent of Batson.1
2
During voir dire in Crespin’s retrial, the prosecutor used a peremptory
challenge to strike prospective juror Obregon, a Hispanic female. Crespin’s
counsel objected under People v. Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d 258, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583
P.2d 748 (1978) , contending that the prosecutor had excused Obregon because of1
her race. The prosecutor stated that she had excused Obregon because Obregon
had indicated on her juror questionnaire that her nephew had been arrested for or
charged with armed robbery.
The trial court denied Crespin’s Wheeler motion. The trial court’s
determination as to whether the prosecutor's explanation for dismissing a member
of the venire is credible must be accorded substantial deference. Rice v. Collins,
546 U.S. 333, 338-39, 126 S.Ct. 969, 163 L.Ed.2d 824 (2006). As long as the
prosecutor presents a "comprehensible reason" and her motive is not inherently
discriminatory, her explanation need not be "persuasive, or even plausible" to
suffice. Id. at 338, 126 S.Ct. 969. The state appellate court based its decision on
the trial court's factual finding that the prosecutor was motivated by her belief that
Obregon would be sympathetic to Crespin because she had a nephew who likely
was approximately the same age as Crespin who had been arrested for or charged
with armed robbery. That decision was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable

-- 2 of 3 --

3
application of federal law.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --