Walter Dean Ernest v. David L. Runnels

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
WALTER DEAN ERNEST,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DAVID L. RUNNELS,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 07-17199
D.C. No. CV-05-02843-VRW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Vaughn R. Walker, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Walter Dean Ernest appeals pro se from the district
court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
JUL 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-17199 2
Ernest contends that the trial court violated his constitutional rights when it
excluded evidence that the woman he was convicted of raping had been arrested
three years earlier for prostitution, and that she had been terminated from her job.
Because the excluded evidence he cites was not particularly probative or reliable,
its exclusion by the trial court did not violate Ernest’s right to due process. See
Christian v. Frank, 595 F.3d 1076-1085-86 (9th Cir. 2010); cf. Chia v. Cambra,
360 F.3d 997, 1004 (9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, the California Court of Appeal’s
rejection of Ernest’s claims was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable
application of, clearly established Supreme Court law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
Moreover, as the district court determined, any errors did not have a
substantial and injurious effect on the jury’s verdict in light of the overwhelming
evidence of Ernest’s guilt. See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637 (1993).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --