state court’s application of Supreme Court law was “objectively unreasonable.” Id. at 409-10, 120 S.Ct. 1495. In other words, habeas relief is warranted only if the state court’s ruling was “so lacking in justification 80, 130 S.Ct. 2250, 176 L.Ed.2d 1098 (2010) (when state supreme court denies discretionary review of decision on direct appeal, that decision is relevant state-court decision for pui'poses of AEDPA’s standard of review). As to ground two, because neither the court of appeal nor the supreme court specifically addressed Petitioner’s federal constitutional claim, the Court conducts an independent review of the record to determine whether the state courts were objectively unreasonable in applying controlling federal law. See Haney v. Adams, 641 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>); see also Richter, 131 S.Ct. at 784, 786
holding that we review constitutional challenges de novo recognizing de novo standard of review holding that whether statements are testimonial is a legal issue subject to de novo review holding that independent review is not de novo review of the constitutional issue but only a means to determine whether the state court decision is objectively unreasonable internal quotation marks omitted holding that review of the construction of a sentencing statute is de novo