Patrick Renteria v. R. Subia

MEMORANDUM

Patrick Renteria appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habe-as petition challenging his California convictions for murdering his wife, dissuading a witness, and felony child endangerment. We affirm.

The state court ruled that Renteria procedurally defaulted his Confrontation Clause challenge to his daughter’s videotaped interview by failing to object at trial. Because this is an independent and adequate state ground, federal habeas relief was properly denied. Loveland v. Hatcher, 231 F.3d 640, 643-44 (9th Cir.2000); Rich v. Calderon, 187 F.3d 1064, 1070 (9th Cir.1999). The state ruling did not lose its independence merely because the state court ruled in the alternative on the merits. Loveland, 231 F.3d at 643-44 .

Likewise, because Renteria has not established that counsel was ineffective for not objecting, he has not shown cause and prejudice to excuse his procedural default. The record establishes that counsel made a reasonable tactical decision not to assert an objection that lacked merit.

In any event, the state court reasonably held that Crawford did not apply because Renteria had an opportunity to cross-examine his daughter at trial, but…