Walton v. Lewis

Ninth Circuit

Walton v. Lewis

155 F. App'x 371

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 12, 2005

DocketNo. 98-56396

StatusPublished

This text of 155 F. App'x 371 (Walton v. Lewis) 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

Walton v. Lewis, 155 F. App'x 371 (9th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

California state prisoner Willie Mack Walton appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his conviction for second degree murder. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Walton contends that his Sixth Amendment right to present a defense and his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process were violated by the trial court’s exclusion of the preliminary hearing testimony of a witness. Because the state court’s decision on this issue was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, as determined by the United States Supreme Court, we affirm the district court’s decision denying relief. See Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 410, 108 S.Ct. 646, 98 L.Ed.2d 798 (1988) (accused does not have unfettered right to present evidence that is inadmissible under standard rules of evidence).

Walton’s request to broaden the Certificate of Appealability is denied.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit 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 Willie Mack Walton appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his conviction for second degree murder. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Walton contends that his Sixth Amendment right to present a defense and his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process were violated by the trial court’s exclusion of the preliminary hearing testimony of a witness. Because the state court’s decision on this issue was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, as determined by the United States Supreme Court, we affirm the district court’s decision denying relief. See Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 410, 108 S.Ct. 646, 98 L.Ed.2d 798 (1988) (accused does not have unfettered right to present evidence that is inadmissible under standard rules of evidence).

Walton’s request to broaden the Certificate of Appealability is denied.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 F. App'x 371, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walton-v-lewis-ca9-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack