Isiac Renteria v. Ben Curry

MEMORANDUM

Isiac Nicholas Renteria appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We review de novo the district court’s denial of a petition for habeas corpus. Lopez v. Thompson, 202 F.3d 1110, 1116 (9th Cir.2000). Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Renteria must show that the state court’s decision was “con trary to,” or involved “an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1), before he is entitled to relief. Because he cannot do so, we affirm.

1. Renteria’s right to present a complete defense was not violated when he was not permitted to introduce evidence of third-party culpability. Although such evidence must be admitted where it “ ‘raise[s] a reasonable inference or presumption as to [the defendant’s] own innocence,’ ” Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319, 323 , 126 S.Ct. 1727 , 164 L.Ed.2d 503 (2006), it is well established that a trial judge may exclude evidence of third-party culpability where that evidence merely “cast[s] a…