Case Name: Candelario GARZA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James A. YATES, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-04-20
Citations: 472 F. App'x 690
Docket Number: No. 10-17375
Parties: Candelario GARZA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James A. YATES, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 472
Pages: 690–692

Head Matter:
Candelario GARZA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James A. YATES, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 10-17375.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 17, 2012.
Filed April 20, 2012.
Reinhardt, Circuit Judge, filed concurring opinion.
Gene Vorobyov, Law Office of Gene Vorobyov, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Candelario Garza, Coalinga, CA, pro se.
Robert C. Nash, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: GOODWIN, REINHARDT, and MURGUIA, 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 Candelario Garza appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his jury conviction for inflicting corporal injury on a spouse, dissuading a witness, and making criminal threats. Garza argues that the state trial court violated his federal due process rights and rendered his trial fundamentally unfair by admitting his former girlfriend's testimony about pri- or conduct as propensity evidence.
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA"), we may grant a habeas petition only if the state court's decision was "forbidden by 'clearly established Federal law,' as laid out by the Supreme Court." Holley v. Yarborough, 568 F.3d 1091, 1101 (9th Cir.2009) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)). A legal principle is "clearly established" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) if "it is embodied in a holding of [the Supreme] Court." Thaler v. Haynes, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1171, 1173, 175 L.Ed.2d 1003 (2010) (citing Carey v. Musladin, 549 U.S. 70, 74, 127 S.Ct. 649, 166 L.Ed.2d 482 (2006)).
Although the Supreme Court has said the writ should issue "when constitutional errors have rendered the trial fundamentally unfair," the Supreme Court "has not yet made a clear ruling that admission of irrelevant or overtly prejudicial evidence constitutes a due process violation sufficient to warrant issuance of the writ." Holley, 568 F.3d at 1101. The Supreme Court reserved the issue of whether admitting other-crimes evidence to show conduct in conformity therewith violates due process. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 75 n. 5, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991); see also Alberni v. McDaniel, 458 F.3d 860, 863 (9th Cir.2006). Therefore, we cannot conclude that the California Court of Appeal acted in an objectively unreasonable manner in concluding that the propen sity evidence introduced against Garza did not violate due process.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.