Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05204/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05204-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

FI LED 

United States Coon Qf Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Cirrnit 

TENTH CIRCUIT AUG 2 4 1990 

IGNACIO A. NAVARRO, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

STEVE HARGETT, Warden; ATTORNEY 

GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-5204 

(D.C. No. 89-C-187-C) 

(N. Dist. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and TACHA, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Petitioner Ignacio A. Navarro appeals the denial of his 

petition for habeas corpus. We affirm. 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-5204 Document: 010110041554 Date Filed: 08/24/1990 Page: 1 
Petitioner contends he was denied a fair trial because of the 

introduction in his state court trial of alleged hearsay evidence 

of a drug-related telephone call to his home, and evidence of his 

other crimes. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed 

these alleged errors and held, over a dissent, that state 

evidentiary rules were not violated. 

As the magistrate recognized, we have held that 

"[t]he rule is well established that state court rulings 

on the admissibility of evidence may not be questioned 

in a federal habeas corpus proceeding, unless they 

render the trial so fundamentally unfair as to 

constitute a denial of federal constitutional rights." 

Gillihan v. Rodriguez, 551 F.2d 1182, 1192-93 (10th Cir. 1976) 

(citations omitted). The record reflects ample evidence to 

support petitioner's conviction for the drug-related crimes, and 

we are not persuaded that the admission of the evidence of the 

telephone call or of the other crimes rendered the trial 

fundamentally unfair. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-5204 Document: 010110041554 Date Filed: 08/24/1990 Page: 2