N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
M AR C US B OR GES,

Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,
v. DAVE DAVEY, W arde n,

R e sponde nt-Appe lle e . No. 13-57156 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-08157-C AS-E
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia C hristina A. Sny de r, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d July

5, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : M UR G UIA, a

nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s, a nd B OLTON, ** Distric t Judge
. C a lifornia

sta te prisone r M arc us B orge s a ppe a ls thedistric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his pe tition for ha

be a s c orpus, in whic h he c h a lle nge s his c onvic t ion for se c ondde gre e robbe ry

on the grounds tha

t thre e a dve rse rulings by the tria l c ourt viola

te d 

# FIL ED JUL 22 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Susa n R . B olton, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ariz ona , sitting by de signa tion.his c onstitutiona l rights: first, the

tria l c ourt’ s sua

sponteruling lim

iting de fe nse c ounse l’ s c ross-e xam ination of thevic tim during trial; se c ond, thetria l c ourt’ s a dm ission of te stim ony

by the inve stiga

ting offic e r that, in his opinion, the vic tim
wa s robbe d a

nd B o rge s wa s the robbe r; a nd third, the

tria l c ourt’ s de nia l of B orge s’ s m otion for a

ne w tria l, through which he sought to introduc e a ne w pe rc ipie nt witne ss who c ould purporte dly te stify to B orge s’ s innoc e nc e . The distric t c o urt de nie d B orge s ha be a s re lie f on a ll thre e c la im s of c onstitutiona l e rror. W e hav e jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. 1. Apply i ng the Antite rrorism and Effe c tive De at

h Pe na lty Ac t of 1996 (“ AEDPA” ), we hold tha

t the C a lifornia

C ourt of Appe a l’ s de te rm ination tha t B orge s’ s Sixth Am e ndm e nt right to c ross-e xam ine witne sse s wa s not viola te d by the t ria l c ourt’ s limita

tion on de fe nse c ounse l’ s que stioning of the vic tim wa s ne ithe r c o ntra

ry to, nor a n unre a sona

ble a pplic ation of, c le arly

e sta b lishe d fe de ra l la w. A de fe nda

nt’ s right to pre se nt a

c om ple te de fe nse , “ a

prim a ry inte re st se c ure d by [whic h] is theright of c ross-e xam ination,”is we ll e sta blishe d. Dav is v . Alask

a , 415 U.S. 308, 315 (1974) (quoting Douglas v . Alabama , 380 U.S. 415, 418 (1965)); se ealso De law are v . Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679 (1986). Howe ve r, it is e qua lly we ll e s ta blishe d tha

t tria l c ourts m ay

e xc lude e vide nc e pursua nt to sta te rule s of proc e dure without viola ting c rim ina l de fe nda

nts’ c onstitutiona

l rights. S

e e
2Van Arsdall , 475 U.S. a t 679. Although we

m ay fe e l diffe re ntly

we re this c a se pre s e nte d to us on dire c t re vie w, we m ust c onc lude tha

t the C a lifornia

C o urt of Appe a l re a sona

bly a pplie d fe d e ra l c onstitutiona l princ iple s in holding tha t the tria l
c ourt’ s re stric tion on de fe nse c o unse l’ s c ross-e xam ination of theprim a ry witne ss, ba se d on the tria l c ourt’ s be lie f that e xte nde d que s tioning wa s c um ulative unde r the C a lifornia Evide nc e C o de , did not infringe B orge s’ s c onstitutiona l rights. 2. W e a l so find tha

t the C a lifornia

C o urt of Appe a l’ s c o nc lusion tha t
a dm itting te stim ony

by the inve stiga

ting offic e r that B orge s c o m m itte d the c ha

rge d robbe ry did not viola

te B orge s’ s c onstitutiona

l right to ha

ve a jury de c ide his guilt
wa s re a sona

ble in light of c l e arly

e sta blishe d fe de ra l la

w. The e rrone ous a pplic ation of a

sta te rule of e vide nc e is not a suffic ie nt ba sis for gra

nting fe de ra l ha be a s c orpus re lie f unle ss thee rror re nde re d the tria l funda m e nta lly unfa ir. Este llev . Mc Guire , 502 U.S. 62, 67–68 (1991). B e c a use the Supre m e C ourt ha s ne ve r he l d tha

t a de fe nda nt’ s right to due

proc e ss is viola

te d whe n a

witne ss give s opinion te stim o ny

re ga rding thefa c t of the de fe nda nt’ s guilt, the

C a lifornia

C ourt of Appe a l’ s re

je c tion of B o rge s ’ s c la im c annot ha

ve be e n c ontra

ry to, nor a n unre a s ona

ble a p plic ation of, a

ny c le arly e sta blishe d Supre m e C ourt la w . Se e 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(1).

33. B orge s’ s c onte ntion tha t the tria l c ourt m isa

pplie d sta te la w in de ny ing his motion for a

ne w tria l is not c ogniz a

ble on fe de ra l ha

be a s re v ie w. Se e Este lle , 502 U.S. a

t 67 (“ [F] e de ra l ha

be a s c orpus re lie f doe s not liefor e rrors of sta te la w.” (c ita tion omitte d)). Nor doe s the proffe re d “ n e w ” te stim ony c onc lusive ly

prove B orge s’ s a c tua l innoc e nc e , e ve n if suc h a c la im wa s a va ila ble to a non-c a

pita l ha be a s pe titione r. Se eBousle y v . Unite d State

s , 523 U.S. 614, 623 (1998). AFFIRM ED.

4