Richard Galvan v. James Yates

MEMORANDUM

Richard Galvan appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habe-as corpus petition challenging his conviction for multiple sex offenses against an intoxicated minor. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo, Hurles v. Ryan, 752 F.3d 768, 777 (9th Cir.2014), and affirm.

Habeas relief is available only if the state court’s decision was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1), and only if the error had a “substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict,” Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637-38 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 776 , 66 S.Ct. 1239 , 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946)). See also Fry v. Pliler, 551 U.S. 112, 121-22 , 127 S.Ct. 2321 , 168 L.Ed.2d 16 (2007) (holding that the Brecht standard is proper in post-AEDPA cases)

The issue on appeal is whether Gal-van was denied a fair trial when the trial court applied California’s rape shield law and excluded evidence of the victim’s prior sexual conduct and…