From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hernandez v. Castro

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 19, 2003
80 F. App'x 544 (9th Cir. 2003)

Opinion


80 Fed.Appx. 544 (9th Cir. 2003) Gabriel Louis HERNANDEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. R.A. CASTRO, Warden; et al., Respondents-Appellees. No. 02-55105. D.C. No. CV-00-00588-RT. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. August 19, 2003

Submitted August 11, 2003.

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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

Following petitioner's conviction in state court of charges of inflicting corporal injury upon cohabitant, possessing methamphetamine, and being under influence of methamphetamine, petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus. The United States District Court for the Central District of California, Robert J. Timlin, J., dismissed the petition, and petitioner appealed. The Court of Appeals held that sufficient grounds supported conclusion that petitioner's constitutional challenge to state evidentiary code was procedurally barred.

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Robert J. Timlin, District Judge, Presiding.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

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.

Gabriel Louis Hernandez, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court's

Page 545.

dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his conviction and 25-years-to-life sentence for inflicting injury on a co-habitant and using methamphetamine. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Hernandez contends the district court erred in concluding that he had procedurally defaulted his as-applied constitutional challenge to California Evidence Code section 1370. He first argues that federal review is warranted because the state court discussed the merits of the evidentiary objection in addition to finding it procedurally barred. He is incorrect. California's contemporaneous objection rule is an adequate procedural bar. Chein v. Shumsky, 323 F.3d 748, 751-52 (9th Cir.2003). Even if a state court reaches the merits of a federal claim in the alternative, federal review is barred "as long as the state court explicitly invokes a state procedural bar rule as a separate basis for decision." Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 264 n. 10, 109 S.Ct. 1038, 103 L.Ed.2d 308 (1989); see also Loveland v. Hatcher, 231 F.3d 640, 643-44 (9th Cir.2000).

Hernandez further argues that the procedural bar rule was improperly invoked by the California Court of Appeal because he did in fact object to the admission of the statements as required. This contention is belied by the record. Although Hernandez raised arguments in the trial court that support a facial constitutional challenge, the California Court of Appeal correctly held that, prior to his direct appeal, Hernandez failed to object to the evidence on the ground that it lacked sufficient indicia of reliability. See Guam v. Cepeda, 69 F.3d 369, 373 (9th Cir.1995) (holding that statements falling within a hearsay exception are ordinarily admissible under the Confrontation Clause if the prosecution demonstrates the unavailability of the declarant, and the statements are accompanied by adequate indicia of reliability).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Hernandez v. Castro

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 19, 2003
80 F. App'x 544 (9th Cir. 2003)
Case details for

Hernandez v. Castro

Case Details

Full title:Gabriel Louis HERNANDEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. R.A. CASTRO, Warden; et…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Aug 19, 2003

Citations

80 F. App'x 544 (9th Cir. 2003)