Dailey v. Subia , 369 F. App'x 782 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            MAR 03 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                     U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    JAMES E. DAILEY,                                 No. 07-55791
    Petitioner - Appellant,           D.C. No. CV-05-01504-JTM
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    MICHAEL MARTEL,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of California
    Jeffrey T. Miller, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted: February 16, 2010 **
    Before:         FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    California state prisoner James E. Dailey appeals pro se from the district
    court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have
    jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, 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).
    SM S/Research
    Dailey contends the trial court violated his right to present a defense and to
    closing arguments by precluding him from introducing third-party culpability
    evidence. The state court’s rejection of these claims was neither contrary to, nor an
    unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. Dailey fails to show
    the proffered evidence was admissible under People v. Hall, 
    41 Cal. 3d 826
    (1986).
    Therefore, its exclusion did not violate his constitutional right to present a defense
    under Crane v. Kentucky, 
    476 U.S. 683
    , 690 (1986), nor his right to closing
    arguments under Herring v. New York, 
    422 U.S. 853
    , 857-63 (1975).
    Dailey also raises a number of uncertified claims. Dailey has not “made a
    substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” regarding these claims.
    See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Doe v. Woodford, 
    508 F.3d 563
    , 567 (9th Cir. 2007).
    His motion to expand the certificate of appealability to include these claims is
    therefore denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 
    195 F.3d 1098
    ,
    1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).
    AFFIRMED.
    SMS/Research                               2                                    07-55791
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-55791

Citation Numbers: 369 F. App'x 782

Filed Date: 3/3/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023