Na’donte B. Larrimore v. L. E. SCRIBNER, Warden

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NA’DONTE B. LARRIMORE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
L. E. SCRIBNER, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 08-56103
D.C. No. 2:06-cv-01125-CJC-PLA
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 5, 2010
Pasadena, California
Before: SCHROEDER, FISHER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Na’Donte Larrimore, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court’s
denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. Larrimore argues he was denied his
Sixth Amendment right to confront a witness, Nancy Cornista, when the state trial
court allowed the continued reading of Cornista’s preliminary hearing testimony
FILED
FEB 18 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
even after the court learned that she had contacted the prosecutor’s office and had
become potentially available. There is no dispute concerning the trial court’s
earlier ruling the witness was then unavailable.
Larrimore’s claim that he did not have an adequate opportunity to cross-
examine Cornista at the preliminary hearing is procedurally barred. See Coleman
v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750 (1991). By stating only that he “object[ed] for the
record,” Larrimore failed to raise a timely and specific objection as required by
California law. See People v. Waidla, 22 Cal. 4th 690, 726 n.8 (2000). As to
Larrimore’s contention that the trial court should have further explored Cornista’s
potential future availability, we hold that the state court of appeal was not
unreasonable in concluding that the witness remained unavailable to provide
testimony. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --