Harold Morales v. ROSANNE CAMPBELL, Warden

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
HAROLD MORALES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ROSANNE CAMPBELL, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,
Real-party-in-interest -
Appellee.
No. 08-16294
D.C. No. 3:06-CV-06645-MHP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Marilyn H. Patel, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
FILED
JUL 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-16294 2
California state prisoner Harold Morales appeals from the district court’s
judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Morales contends that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment rights by
admitting statements by the woman he was convicted of murdering. Morales
argues that Giles v. California, 128 S.Ct. 2678 (2008), applies retroactively, or
alternatively, the state court’s application of the “forfeiture by wrongdoing”
doctrine was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established
federal law as determined by the United States Supreme Court at the time of his
appeal. These contentions are foreclosed. See Ponce v. Felker, 606 F.3d 596 (9th
Cir. 2010).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --