Case ID: f-appx_377/html/0619-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jermaine Edward CASEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Julie BROWN, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 07-16594.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 16, 2010.
    
    Filed April 21, 2010.
    Jermaine Edward Casey, lone, CA, pro se.
    
      Mark D. Eibert, Esquire, Half Moon Bay, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Jeffrey M. Bryant, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Michael D. O’Reilley, Esquire, Attorney General Office, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, appellant
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Jermaine Edward Casey appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2258, and we affirm.

Casey contends that the trial court violated his due process and confrontation rights by refusing to allow defense counsel to cross-examine a witness regarding whether she had made prior false accusations of sexual assault. The record demonstrates that the trial court considered legitimate state concerns in reaching its decision, and therefore the California state court’s decision rejecting this claim was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court law, nor was it an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see Fowler v. Sacramento County Sheriff's Dept., 421 F.3d 1027, 1038-39 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that trial court’s weighing of legitimate state interests was not “contrary to” clearly established Supreme Court law).

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