Case Name: Gary GROSVENOR, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Jean HILL, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-08
Citations: 224 F. App'x 627
Docket Number: No. 05-35656
Parties: Gary GROSVENOR, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Jean HILL, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellant.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and LEW , District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 224
Pages: 627–628

Head Matter:
Gary GROSVENOR, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Jean HILL, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellant.
No. 05-35656.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 2, 2007 .
Filed March 8, 2007.
Anthony David Bornstein, Esq., FPDOR-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Portland, OR, for Petitioner-Appellee.
Janet A. Metcalf, Esq., Jennifer S. Lloyd, Esq., AGOR-Office of the Oregon Attorney General, Salem, OR, for Respondent-Appellant.
Before: REINHARDT and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and LEW , District Judge.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Ronald S.W. Lew, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The state appeals from the district court's grant of habeas relief to Grosvenor. The district court granted relief because of videotaped, testimonial statements admitted at trial in violation of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). We agree with the district court that Grosvenor properly exhausted this claim before the state court through his pro se brief. However, because his conviction became final before the Supreme Court's decision in Crawford, and Crawford is not retroactive, Whorton v. Bockting, — U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 1173, 167 L.Ed.2d 1 (2007), we are compelled to REVERSE the district court and DENY the petition on the merits.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.