From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Darn v. Knowles

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 27, 2004
116 F. App'x 810 (9th Cir. 2004)

Opinion

Argued and Submitted Oct. 6, 2004.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Page 811.

Floyd Darn, Ione, CA, pro se.

John J. Jordan, Amy Haddix, Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Susan Yvonne Illston, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-02-02892-SI.

Before: TROTT, MCKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and SHADUR, Senior District Judge.

Hon. Milton I. Shadur, Senior U.S. District Judge for Northern Illinois, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Floyd Darn appeals the district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition, alleging that the admission of prior sexual assault evidence under California Evidence Code section 1108 and its related jury instruction, CALJIC 2.50.01, violated his federal constitutional right to due process because they impermissibly lower the prosecution's burden of proof.

At trial, Darn's sole objections to the introduction of the prior assault evidence were that the prior alleged assault did not fall within the scope of section 1108 as a same or similar offense and that the evidence was highly prejudicial. Darn did not raise a constitutional argument until his state appeal. Moreover, Darn did not object to CALJIC 2.50.01 at trial, and he made no independent argument as to the constitutionality of that instruction to the California Court of Appeal. Consequently, the California Court of Appeal held that the arguments were procedurally waived under California law, relying on the state's contemporaneous objection rule, People v. McPeters, 2 Cal.4th 1148, 1188, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 832 P.2d 146 (1992), and California Evidence Code § 353. Thus, his claims are procedurally barred in federal court.

Darn made no attempt to overcome this bar in the district court by demonstrating cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice. Consequently, federal habeas relief is unavailable.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Darn v. Knowles

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 27, 2004
116 F. App'x 810 (9th Cir. 2004)
Case details for

Darn v. Knowles

Case Details

Full title:Floyd DARN, Petitioner--Appellant, v. Mike KNOWLES, Warden…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Oct 27, 2004

Citations

116 F. App'x 810 (9th Cir. 2004)