Kevin L. Richard v. Debra Dexter

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KEVIN L. RICHARD,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DEBRA DEXTER,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 07-55736
D.C. No. CV-04-04519-VAP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Kevin L. Richard appeals from the district court’s
judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
OCT 05 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-55736 2
Richard contends the trial court violated his right to present a defense by
precluding him from introducing evidence of third party culpability. The state
court’s rejection of this claim was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable
application of, clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
Richard fails to show the proffered evidence was admissible under People v. Hall,
41 Cal. 3d 826 (1986). Therefore, its exclusion did not violate his constitutional
right to present a defense under Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690 (1986). See
Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319, 326-27 (2006) (“the Constitution permits
judges to exclude evidence that is repetitive . . ., only marginally relevant or poses
an undue risk of harassment, prejudice, [or] confusion of the issues”) (alterations in
original) (internal quotations omitted); see also Spivey v. Rocha, 194 F.3d 971, 978
(9th Cir. 1999) (concluding that state trial court did not infringe defendant’s
constitutional rights by excluding speculative third-party culpability evidence).
We construe Richard’s additional argument as a motion to expand the
certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R.
22-1(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per
curiam).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --