Dean Hale v. Kim Holland

MEMORANDUM

Dean Hale, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We review the district court’s denial of Hale’s habeas petition de novo, Hurles v. Ryan, 752 F.3d 768, 777 (9th Cir. 2014), and affirm the district court.

I

The state court did not commit constitutional error by excluding the impeachment evidence related to Lisa V. Rather, the court permissibly evaluated the “probative value [and] the potential adverse effects of admitting the defense evidence.” Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319, 329 , 126 S.Ct. 1727 , 164 L.Ed.2d 503 (2006). This discretionary balancing was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. Moses v. Payne, 555 F.3d 742, 758-59 (9th Cir. 2009).

II

The California Court of Appeal reasonably concluded that the prosecutor’s closing argument did not deprive Hale of due process. To rise to the level of a due process violation, a prosecutor’s closing argument must be more than “improper”—it must “so infect[ ] the trial with, unfairness as to make the resulting conviction…