Robert John Cruz v. Rosanne Campbell

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ROBERT JOHN CRUZ,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ROSANNE CAMPBELL,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 08-15916
D.C. No. 3:06-CV-06405-MJJ
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Martin J. Jenkins, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Robert John Cruz 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
APR 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-15916 2
Cruz contends that the trial court violated his due process rights by failing to
consider his background and character when it denied his motion to dismiss a prior
“strike” conviction, pursuant to California Penal Code § 1385. This contention is
belied by the record. Thus, the California Court of Appeal’s decision rejecting this
claim was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the
evidence presented. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2).
Cruz also contends that his sentence of 25 years to life was cruel and
unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The California Court
of Appeal’s decision rejecting this claim was neither contrary to, nor involved an
unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the
Supreme Court of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Ewing v.
California, 538 U.S. 11, 29-31 (2003).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --