Case ID: f-appx_388/html/0719-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Walter Dean ERNEST, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David L. RUNNELS, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 07-17199.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 29, 2010.
    
    Filed July 21, 2010.
    Walter Dean Ernest, Susanville, CA, pro se.
    Lisa Ashley Ott, Esq., AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    
      Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Walter Dean Ernest appeals pro se from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habe-as corpus petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Ernest contends that the trial court violated his constitutional rights when it excluded evidence that the woman he was convicted of raping had been arrested three years earlier for prostitution, and that she had been terminated from her job. Because the excluded evidence he cites was not particularly probative or reliable, its exclusion by the trial court did not violate Ernest’s right to due process. See Christian v. Frank, 595 F.3d 1076, 1085-86 (9th Cir.2010); cf. Chia v. Cambra, 360 F.3d 997, 1004 (9th Cir.2004). Accordingly, the California Court of Appeal’s rejection of Ernest’s claims was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).

Moreover, as the district court determined, any errors did not have a substantial and injurious effect on the jury’s verdict in light of the overwhehuing evidence of Ernest’s guilt. See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993).

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