James Burgess v. James Gomez, Director, California Department of Corrections

981 F.2d 1257 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. James BURGESS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James GOMEZ, Director, California Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee. No. 92-55100. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Oct. 9, 1992. * Decided Dec. 8, 1992. Before TANG, PREGERSON and ALARCON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 James Burgess appeals from the denial of his state prisoner petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Burgess contends that he was deprived of his federal constitutional rights in the state court proceedings in the following respects: one, the admission of his prior misdemeanor conviction for soliciting a prostitute violated due process; two, the prosecutor's misconduct deprived him of his right to a fair trial; three, the exclusion of evidence that the victim had cocaine in his system when he was shot deprived him of due process; four, the evidence was insufficient to prove that he acted with malice when he shot the…