James Richard Terrovona v. Lawrence Kincheloe, Warden

James Terrovona appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition. He contends the trial court admitted into evidence incriminating statements and testimony on his probationary status in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (1988), and we affirm.

FACTS and CASE HISTORY

The facts of this case are stated in Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 852 F.2d 424, 425-26 (9th Cir.1988) (“Terrovona I”). Additional facts will be presented in conjunction with our discussion of specific claims.

In Terrovona I, the panel remanded for consideration of: 1) whether Terrovona’s warrantless arrest was illegal, and if so, whether an incriminating statement he made incident to the arrest should have been suppressed; 2) whether Terrovona voluntarily waived his Miranda rights ; and 3) whether the admission of evidence regarding Terrovona’s status as a federal probationer violated due process.

On remand, the district court denied Ter-rovona’s requests for appointed counsel and an evidentiary hearing. The court then found that Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 , 96 S.Ct. 3037 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976), barred Terrovona’s…