MARK EDDIE McKENZIE v. JAMES A. YATES, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MARK EDDIE McKENZIE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JAMES A. YATES, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 08-17448
D.C. No. 1:06-cv-00450-ALA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Arthur L. Alarcón, Circuit Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted September 1, 2011
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, BERZON and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner McKenzie 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 24 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-17448 2
McKenzie contends that his constitutional right to due process was violated
when, during voir dire, the judge stated that he would have the discretion to grant
probation and the prosecutor stated that the court could reduce the offense to a
misdemeanor. Because McKenzie does not show that the California Court of
Appeal’s decision rejecting McKenzie’s contentions was contrary to or an
unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent, the district court did not err
in denying the petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Further, McKenzie’s trial was
not “so fundamentally unfair” that it denied McKenzie due process under Donnelly
v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 645 (1974).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --