Shane Ryan Sanches v. Anthony Hedgpeth

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SHANE RYAN SANCHES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ANTHONY HEDGPETH,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 07-56225
D.C. No. CV-05-00659-DDP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Shane Ryan Sanches 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
JUN 04 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-56225 2
Sanches contends that the California superior court violated his due process
rights during his trial for spousal rape by admitting prejudicial propensity evidence
of two prior rape convictions under California Evidence Code § 1108. However,
the Supreme Court has never held that the admission of prior sexual misconduct to
lend credence to a victim’s claims is unconstitutional. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502
U.S. 62, 75 n.5 (1991); see also Mejia v. Garcia, 534 F.3d 1036, 1046 (9th Cir.
2008). Moreover, the Supreme Court has “not yet made a clear ruling that
admission of irrelevant or overtly prejudicial evidence [under state law] constitutes
a due process violation sufficient to warrant issuance of the writ.” Holley v.
Yarborough, 568 F.3d 1091, 1101 (9th Cir. 2009). Therefore, the California Court
of Appeal did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law, as
determined by the Supreme Court, when it rejected this claim. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d)(1); see also Carey v. Musladin, 549 U.S. 70, 77 (2006).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --