Stewart v. Lewis

97 F. App'x 777
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided May 19, 2004·No. No. 03-56219·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

California prisoner Tony Stewart appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo, Clark v. Murphy, 331 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm.

Stewart contends that his due process rights were violated because the trial court failed to specifically instruct the jury regarding his theory of defense.

Although both the California Appellate Court and the district court found that the trial court erred in failing to give the specific instruction regarding excessive force by police officers, the district court correctly found that habeas relief is not warranted because Stewart cannot demonstrate that the error “so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process.” Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 72, 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

Stewart v. Lewis, 97 F. App'x 777 (9th Cir. 2004).

97 F. App'x 777 (Stewart v. Lewis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Stewart v. Yates, Warden
543 U.S. 945 (Supreme Court, 2004)