John Almeda v. Fred Foulk

MEMORANDUM

I. John Almeda contends that the trial court denied his right to present a defense by erroneously holding that an alibi witness was unavailable to testify. See California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485 , 104 S.Ct. 2528 , 81 L.Ed.2d 418 (1984). The California Court of Appeal denied this claim, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding that the witness was unavailable and that other witnesses could have provided the same testimony. This decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1), nor an unreasonable determination of the facts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(2).

II. Almeda argues that his right to a fair trial was violated when the trial court refused to grant him a continuance or a mistrial. The decision whether to grant a continuance “is made in the discretion of the trial judge, the exercise of which will ordinarily not be reviewed.” Avery v. Alabama, 308 U.S. 444, 446 , 60 S.Ct. 321 , 84 L.Ed. 377 (1940); see Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S. 766, 774, 130 S.Ct. 1855 , 176 L.Ed.2d 678 (2010) (applying similar standard to decision whether to grant mistrial). It is…