Tamekca Walker v. Ron Davis , 617 F. App'x 794 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 24 2015
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    TAMEKCA WALKER,                                    No. 14-15342
    Petitioner - Appellant,           D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01882-GGH
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    RON DAVIS,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of California
    Gregory G. Hollows, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted September 17, 2015
    San Francisco, California
    Before: CALLAHAN, CHRISTEN, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    Tamekca Walker appeals the district court’s denial of her 28 U.S.C. § 2254
    habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under § 2253, and we affirm.1
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    1
    Because the parties are familiar with the facts we do not recount them
    here.
    Walker contends the introduction at trial of potentially irrelevant and
    prejudicial autopsy photographs of her foster daughter violated her due process
    rights. Walker’s petition is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death
    Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) and cannot be granted unless the state court’s
    adjudication was: (1) “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of,
    clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United
    States”; or (2) “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.” § 2254(d).
    Walker argues that the state court’s decision was contrary to clearly established
    Supreme Court law. We are bound, however, by the holding in Holley v.
    Yarborough that the Supreme court “has not yet made a clear ruling that admission
    of irrelevant or overtly prejudicial evidence constitutes a due process violation
    sufficient to warrant issuance of the writ.” 
    568 F.3d 1091
    , 1101 (9th Cir. 2009).
    We cannot say that the state court’s decision to admit potentially irrelevant and
    prejudicial autopsy photographs over Walker’s objection was contrary to clearly
    established federal law. Walker’s petition must be denied.
    AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-15342

Citation Numbers: 617 F. App'x 794

Filed Date: 9/24/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023