Isaiah Petillo v. C. Worldand , 570 F. App'x 697 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 21 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ISAIAH JOEL PETILLO, No. 12-55934
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-05005-CJC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
C. WORLDAND,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 16, 2014**
Before: GOULD, BERZON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Isaiah Joel Petillo appeals pro se from the district
court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo, see McMurtrey v. Ryan,
539 F.3d 1112, 1118 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Petillo contends that the trial court’s admission of Emma Duke’s testimony
violated his Sixth Amendment right to cross-examine two palmprint experts who
verified her analysis. Whether or not it was a violation of the Confrontation Clause
for Duke to rely on the experts’ verification of her conclusions, see Crawford v.
Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), in light of the rest of Duke’s testimony, as well as
the other evidence placing Petillo at the murder scene, any error in admitting the
testimony was harmless. See Jackson v. Brown, 513 F.3d 1057, 1084-85 (9th Cir.
2008).
Petillo also contends that his right to due process was violated because the
prosecutor improperly vouched for two expert witnesses. We agree with the
district court that it was not contrary to clearly established federal law for the state
court to conclude that the prosecution’s description of its experts’ professional
performance and its use of “we” in closing arguments to express reasonable
inferences from the evidence admitted at trial were not improper. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d)(1); United States v. Ruiz, 710 F.3d 1077, 1086 (9th Cir.), cert. denied,
134 S. Ct. 488 (2013). Further, to the extent there was improper vouching, any
error was harmless. See Fry v. Pliler, 551 U.S. 112, 127 (2007).
We construe Petillo’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the
certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-
2
1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Petillo’s request for
an evidentiary hearing. See West v. Ryan, 608 F.3d 477, 484-85 (9th Cir. 2010).
AFFIRMED.
3