472 F. App'x 503
9th Cir.2012Background
- Greel appeals a district-court habeas denial challenging admission of propensity and prejudicial evidence and claims insufficient proof of kidnapping to commit rape.
- Review is under AEDPA, evaluating whether the state court’s adjudication was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.
- Court notes the last reasoned state-court opinion was by the California Court of Appeal, per Womack v. Del Papa.
- Ninth Circuit adopts de novo review of the district court’s denial and may affirm on any record-supported ground.
- Greel’s overarching theory is that admitted evidence violated due process and that evidence failed to prove kidnapping to commit rape.
- Court affirms, and also denies Greel’s uncertified challenge to expand the certificate of appealability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Propensity evidence due process | Greel argues admission of sexual-misconduct evidence violated due process. | Greel failed to identify Supreme Court precedent establishing such a rule. | No clearly established violation; not entitled to relief. |
| Prejudicial evidence due process | There is a due process violation from prejudicial evidence admission. | No clearly established federal law supports such a due-process protection. | No clearly established violation; AEDPA bars relief. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Evidence was insufficient to support kidnapping to commit rape. | Not specified in opinion as a grantable COA issue; argued as COA extension. | Motion construed as COA expansion denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mejia v. Garcia, 534 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2008) (propensity-evidence rule not clearly established for due-process violation)
- Holley v. Yarborough, 568 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2009) (no clearly established due-process protection against prejudicial evidence)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court 2000) (errors affecting fundamental fairness not automatically warranting relief absent clearly established law)
- Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (Supreme Court 1991) (due-process concerns over trial fairness and evidence)
- Womack v. Del Papa, 497 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 2007) (reviewing state court decisions for AEDPA habeas relief)
- Greenway v. Schriro, 653 F.3d 790 (9th Cir. 2011) (AEDPA standard applies to clearly established federal law)
- Martinez-Villareal v. Lewis, 80 F.3d 1301 (9th Cir. 1996) (de novo review of district court’s habeas denial)