Miller v. Fleming

Ninth Circuit

Miller v. Fleming

291 F. App'x 72

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 20, 2008

DocketNo. 07-35953

StatusPublished

This text of 291 F. App'x 72 (Miller v. Fleming) 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

Miller v. Fleming, 291 F. App'x 72 (9th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

*

Gary M. Fleming appeals the order of the district court for the Western District of Washington granting Leon Eugene Mil[73]*73ler’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The highest state court to review Miller’s appeal of a conviction of two counts of child molestation, Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.088(1), did not address Miller’s federal claim. Accordingly, we review it de novo. See Pirtle v. Morgan, 313 F.3d 1160, 1167 (9th Cir.2002).

The district court properly found that the admission of three hearsay statements violated rules “articulated by the Supreme Court” in Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980), Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 110 S.Ct. 3139, 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990), and Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116, 119 S.Ct. 1887, 144 L.Ed.2d 117 (1999).

The judgment of the district court is 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

ORDER

*

Gary M. Fleming appeals the order of the district court for the Western District of Washington granting Leon Eugene Mil[73]*73ler’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The highest state court to review Miller’s appeal of a conviction of two counts of child molestation, Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.088(1), did not address Miller’s federal claim. Accordingly, we review it de novo. See Pirtle v. Morgan, 313 F.3d 1160, 1167 (9th Cir.2002).

The district court properly found that the admission of three hearsay statements violated rules “articulated by the Supreme Court” in Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980), Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 110 S.Ct. 3139, 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990), and Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116, 119 S.Ct. 1887, 144 L.Ed.2d 117 (1999).

The judgment of the district court is 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)

291 F. App'x 72, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-fleming-ca9-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack