Coleman v. Mitchell

Ninth Circuit

Coleman v. Mitchell

338 F. App'x 672

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided July 21, 2009·No. No. 07-15888·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Donna Coleman appeals from the district court’s judgment denying her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Coleman contends that her right to due process was violated when her legs were shackled in front of the jury. Because Coleman procedurally defaulted the claim in her federal habeas petition, we do not reach the merits of her claim. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 729, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991); see also Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991).

AFFIRMED.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Donna Coleman appeals from the district court’s judgment denying her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Coleman contends that her right to due process was violated when her legs were shackled in front of the jury. Because Coleman procedurally defaulted the claim in her federal habeas petition, we do not reach the merits of her claim. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 729, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991); see also Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991).

AFFIRMED.

Footnotes

Coleman v. Mitchell, 338 F. App'x 672 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

338 F. App'x 672 (Coleman v. Mitchell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Footnotes

Related