Hall v. Pliler

Ninth Circuit

Hall v. Pliler

320 F. App'x 703

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 27, 2009

DocketNo. 04-17336

StatusPublished

This text of 320 F. App'x 703 (Hall v. Pliler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hall v. Pliler, 320 F. App'x 703 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

***

California state prisoner Randy Aaron Hall appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, challenging his conviction for committing a lewd act on a child. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § § 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.

Hall contends that the jury instructions that allowed consideration of prior acts of sexual misconduct to show propensity violated his rights by lessening the burden of proof. We conclude that the state court’s decision rejecting this claim was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the United States Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see alsEstelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 71-75, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991); Alberni v. McDaniel, 458 F.3d 860, 863-67 (9th Cir.2006); Gibson v. Ortiz, 387 F.3d 812, 822 (9th Cir.2004).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM

***

California state prisoner Randy Aaron Hall appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, challenging his conviction for committing a lewd act on a child. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § § 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.

Hall contends that the jury instructions that allowed consideration of prior acts of sexual misconduct to show propensity violated his rights by lessening the burden of proof. We conclude that the state court’s decision rejecting this claim was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the United States Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see alsEstelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 71-75, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991); Alberni v. McDaniel, 458 F.3d 860, 863-67 (9th Cir.2006); Gibson v. Ortiz, 387 F.3d 812, 822 (9th Cir.2004).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

320 F. App'x 703, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-pliler-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack