Case ID: f-appx_454/html/0622-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mark Eddie McKENZIE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. James A. YATES, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
    No. 08-17448.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Sept. 1, 2011.
    Filed Oct. 24, 2011.
    Mark Eddie McKenzie, Coalinga, CA, pro se.
    John Bachman, Esquire, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: WALLACE, BERZON and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner McKenzie 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, and we affirm.

McKenzie contends that his constitutional right to due process was violated when, during voir dire, the judge stated that he would have the discretion to grant probation and the prosecutor stated that the court could reduce the offense to a misdemeanor. Because McKenzie does not show that the California Court of Appeal’s decision rejecting McKenzie’s contentions was contrary to or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent, the district court did not err in denying the petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Further, McKenzie’s trial was not “so fundamentally unfair” that it denied McKenzie due process under Donnelly v. De-Christoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 645, 94 S.Ct. 1868, 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.