Timothy Foy, Jr. v. Raul Lopez

MEMORANDUM *

In California state court, a jury convicted Timothy Foy of several forcible sexual offenses and kidnapping. Foy appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm the district court’s judgment.

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), “[this court] must defer to the state court’s resolution of federal claims unless its determination ‘resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.’ ” Delgadillo v. Woodford, 527 F.3d 919, 924-25 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1)). “ ‘[C]learly established Federal law7 under § 2254(d)(1) is the governing legal principle or principles set forth by the Supreme Court at the time the state court renders its decision.” Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 71-72 , 123 S.Ct. 1166 , 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003) (quoting Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405, 413 , 120 S.Ct. 1495 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000)). “[A] federal habeas court may overturn a state court’s application of federal law…

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I dissent'from the majority’s conclusion in Part I.B that the exclusion of Foy’s evidence regarding the kidnapping charge did not justify issuing the writ under AEDPA with respect to that charge.

The relevant question is whether excluding evidence that O. “willingly enter[ed] into stranger’s cars” and “direct[ed] them to a location of her choosing,” which Foy argued would provide “circumstantial evidence to establish that no ‘kidnap’ had occurred,” violated Foy’s due process right to present a complete defense to the kidnapping charge. The only reasonable answer is yes.

It is clearly established that a defendant’s right to “a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense,” Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319, 324 , 126 S.Ct. 1727 , 164 L.Ed.2d 503 (2006) (quoting Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690 , 106 S.Ct. 2142 , 90 L.Ed.2d 636 (1986)) (internal quotation marks omitted), “is abridged by evidence rules that ‘infringe upon a weighty interest of the accused’ and are ‘arbitrary’ or ‘disproportionate to the purposes they are designed to serve.’ ” Id. (quoting United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 308 , 118 S.Ct. 1261 , 140…

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 06 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TIMOTHY LEON FOY, Jr., No. 12-15947

Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-02322-KJM-TJB

v.

MEMORANDUM*

CONNIE GIPSON, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 18, 2014 San Francisco, California

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, REINHARDT and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

In California state court, a jury convicted Timothy Foy of several forcible

sexual offenses and kidnapping. Foy appeals the district court’s denial of his

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,

and we affirm the district court’s judgment.

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA),

“[this court] must defer to the state court’s resolution of…