Kinney Compton v. G. Giurbino , 539 F. App'x 746 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            AUG 22 2013
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    KINNEY WAYNE COMPTON,                            No. 09-56946
    Petitioner - Appellant,           D.C. No. 2:06-cv-02811-GW
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    KEVIN CHAPPELL, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted August 6, 2013**
    Before:        HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY Circuit Judges.
    Kinney Wayne Compton appeals from the district court’s judgment denying
    his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    . We review de novo, Ybarra v. McDaniel, 
    656 F.3d 984
    , 989 (9th Cir.
    2011), 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).
    Compton contends that the trial court’s admission into evidence of the
    deceased victim’s out-of-court statements to police violated Compton’s Sixth
    Amendment right to confrontation. As to the crime scene and emergency room
    statements, the state court did not unreasonably apply clearly established Supreme
    Court law in denying Compton’s claims. See 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
    (d)(1). Crawford v.
    Washington, 
    541 U.S. 36
     (2004), left ambiguous the scope and meaning of the
    terms “testimonial” and “interrogation,” and there were material differences
    between the circumstances in Crawford and those presented here. As to the
    statements made by Compton five days after the shooting, admission of those
    statements was harmless. See Brecht v. Abramson, 
    507 U.S. 619
    , 637-38 (1993).
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-56946

Citation Numbers: 539 F. App'x 746

Judges: Farris, Hug, Leavy

Filed Date: 8/22/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023