Na'donte Larrimore v. L. Scribner

Ninth Circuit

Na'donte Larrimore v. L. Scribner

365 F. App'x 858

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 18, 2010

Docket08-56103

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 365 F. App'x 858 (Na'donte Larrimore v. L. Scribner) 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

Na'donte Larrimore v. L. Scribner, 365 F. App'x 858 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Na’Donte Larrimore, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial *859 of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. Larrimore argues he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to confront a witness, Nancy Cornista, when the state trial court allowed the continued reading of Cornis-ta’s preliminary hearing testimony even after the court learned that she had contacted the prosecutor’s office and had become potentially available. There is no dispute concerning the trial court’s earlier ruling the witness was then unavailable.

Larrimore’s claim that he did not have an adequate opportunity to cross-examine Cornista at the preliminary hearing is procedurally barred. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991). By stating only that he “object[ed] for the record,” Larrimore failed to raise a timely and specific objection as required by California law. See People v. Waidla, 22 Cal.4th 690, 726 n. 8, 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 396, 996 P.2d 46 (2000). As to Larrimore’s contention that the trial court should have further explored Cornis-ta’s potential future availability, we hold that the state court of appeal was not unreasonable in concluding that the witness remained unavailable to provide testimony. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).

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 *

Na’Donte Larrimore, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial *859 of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. Larrimore argues he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to confront a witness, Nancy Cornista, when the state trial court allowed the continued reading of Cornis-ta’s preliminary hearing testimony even after the court learned that she had contacted the prosecutor’s office and had become potentially available. There is no dispute concerning the trial court’s earlier ruling the witness was then unavailable.

Larrimore’s claim that he did not have an adequate opportunity to cross-examine Cornista at the preliminary hearing is procedurally barred. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991). By stating only that he “object[ed] for the record,” Larrimore failed to raise a timely and specific objection as required by California law. See People v. Waidla, 22 Cal.4th 690, 726 n. 8, 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 396, 996 P.2d 46 (2000). As to Larrimore’s contention that the trial court should have further explored Cornis-ta’s potential future availability, we hold that the state court of appeal was not unreasonable in concluding that the witness remained unavailable to provide testimony. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).

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)

365 F. App'x 858, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nadonte-larrimore-v-l-scribner-ca9-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack