Pedro L. Bueno v. John Hallahan

Good Law
93 Daily Journal DAR 3471·988 F.2d 86·1993 WL 73921·1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 4921·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1928
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 18, 199392-16183California706 words

Opinion

Opinion

Pedro L. Bueno, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction for eight counts of attempted trafficking in stolen property. He contends that the state trial court violated due process by admitting hearsay evidence, requiring him to elect defenses, and enhancing his sentence on the basis of pri- or convictions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo, Norris v. Risley, 878 F.2d 1178, 1180 (9th Cir.1989), and affirm.

First, Bueno contends that the district court erred by denying on the merits and alternatively finding procedurally defaulted his claim of improper admission of hearsay testimony. This contention lacks merit.

A state court’s evidentiary ruling is grounds for federal habeas corpus relief only if it renders the state proceeding so fundamentally unfair as to violate due process. Jammal v. Van de Kamp, 926 F.2d 918, 919-20 (9th Cir.1991)

Bueno’s convictions were based on his purchase of cigarettes and liquor from an undercover police officer. He contends that the trial court violated due process by admitting the officer’s hearsay testimony about conversations between…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.