Case Name: Shane Ryan SANCHES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony HEDGPETH, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-04
Citations: 381 F. App'x 710
Docket Number: No. 07-56225
Parties: Shane Ryan SANCHES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony HEDGPETH, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 381
Pages: 710–711

Head Matter:
Shane Ryan SANCHES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony HEDGPETH, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 07-56225.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 25, 2010.
Filed June 4, 2010.
Tracy Dressner, Esquire, Attorney at Law, La Crescenta, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Shane Ryan Sanches 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.
Sanches contends that the California superior court violated his due process rights during his trial for spousal rape by admitting prejudicial propensity evidence of two prior rape convictions under California Evidence Code § 1108. However, the Supreme Court has never held that the admission of prior sexual misconduct to lend credence to a victim's claims is unconstitutional. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 75 n. 5, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991); see also Mejia v. Garcia, 534 F.3d 1036, 1046 (9th Cir.2008). Moreover, the Supreme Court has "not yet made a clear ruling that admission of irrelevant or overtly prejudicial evidence [under state law] constitutes a due process violation sufficient to warrant issuance of the writ." Holley v. Yarborough, 568 F.3d 1091, 1101 (9th Cir.2009). Therefore, the California Court of Appeal did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court, when it rejected this claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Carey v. Musladin, 549 U.S. 70, 77, 127 S.Ct. 649, 166 L.Ed.2d 482 (2006).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.