Joseph Grice v. John Marshall

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Joseph Grice 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 . We review a district court’s denial of a habeas corpus petition de novo, see Stanley v. Cullen, 633 F.3d 852, 859 (9th Cir.2011), and we affirm.

Grice contends that the trial court violated his rights to present a defense and to confrontation under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments when it limited Grice’s ability to cross-examine a prosecution witness with her prior misdemeanor arrests and convictions. The California Court of Appeal’s rejection of this claim was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1); see Michigan v. Lucas, 500 U.S. 145, 151 , 111 S.Ct. 1743 , 114 L.Ed.2d 205 (1991) (“Restrictions on a criminal defendant’s rights to confront adverse witnesses and to present evidence may not be arbitrary or disproportionate to the purposes they are designed to serve.” (internal quotations omitted)).

Grice’s petition to the district court also alleged that (1) his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to discover…