Santawn Atuanya Miller v. Anthony Lamarque

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).
DAT/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SANTAWN ATUANYA MILLER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ANTHONY LAMARQUE,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 07-56279
D.C. No. CV-05-07137-FMC
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Florence-Marie Cooper, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Santawn Atuanya Miller appeals from the district
court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
MAR 08 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

DAT/Research 07-56279 2
Miller contends that the California Court of Appeal unreasonably applied
clearly established federal law when it determined that the trial court did not
violate his constitutional right to present a defense by excluding out-of-court
exculpatory statements by an absent witness. The district court did not err in
rejecting this argument because the exculpatory statements were unreliable and
non-inculpatory. See LaGrand v. Stewart, 133 F.3d 1253, 1266 (9th Cir. 1998);
see also Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S. 594, 601 (1994).
Miller also argues that the California Court of Appeal unreasonably applied
clearly established federal law by determining that his due process rights were not
violated when the trial court denied his motion for a mistrial. He contends that his
right to a fair trial was violated because defense counsel referred to exculpatory
statements in his opening statement, which were later excluded from evidence.
The district court did not err in rejecting this contention. See Lincoln v. Sunn, 807
F.2d 805, 809 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497, 511
(1978).
We do not address the State’s procedural default argument because Miller’s
claims are clearly without merit. See Franklin v. Johnson, 290 F.3d 1223, 1232
(9th Cir. 2002).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --