Morales

Morales v. Terhune

Good Law
61 F. App'x 335
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 5, 2003No. 01-17386; D.C. No. CV-97-06004-RECCalifornia716 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Victor Manuel Morales appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . Morales chahenges his convictions for lewd and lascivious conduct with a child under the age of fourteen and for oral copulation with a child under the age of fourteen and more than ten years younger than the defendant. The district court held that the exclusion of the victim’s prior accusations of molestation by other individuals was not constitutional error and that defense counsel provided effective assistance. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2258, and we affirm.

We review a district court’s denial of a habeas petition de novo. See Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir.1999). Because Morales’ first habeas petition was filed prior to AEDPA, the standard for determining whether habeas relief should be granted is whether alleged errors “had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 623, 637 , 118 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 776 , 66 S.Ct. 1239 , 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946)). Trial errors that…

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.