Case Name: Robert John CRUZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Rosanne CAMPBELL, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-22
Citations: 377 F. App'x 638
Docket Number: No. 08-15916
Parties: Robert John CRUZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Rosanne CAMPBELL, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 377
Pages: 638–638

Head Matter:
Robert John CRUZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Rosanne CAMPBELL, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-15916.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2010.
Filed April 22, 2010.
William M. Robinson, Sixth District Appellate Program, Santa Clara, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Allen R. Crown, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, 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).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Robert John Cruz 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. § 2253, and we affirm.
Cruz contends that the trial court violated his due process rights by failing to consider his background and character when it denied his motion to dismiss a prior "strike" conviction, pursuant to California Penal Code § 1385. This contention is belied by the record. Thus, the California Court of Appeal's decision rejecting this claim was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2).
Cruz also contends that his sentence of 25 years to life was cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The California Court of Appeal's decision rejecting this claim was neither contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 29-31, 123 S.Ct. 1179, 155 L.Ed.2d 108 (2003).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.