Wolff

MEMORANDUM ***

Appellant Herbert Dean Wolff contends that California Evidence Code § 1108, which allows the introduction of uncharged prior sex offenses in sex crime prosecutions, violates the Constitution’s Due Process Clause. Because Wolffs claim is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), Wolff must show that the state court’s decision upholding the constitutionality of § 1108 was “contrary 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).

The Due Process Clause has limited operation “beyond the specific guarantees enumerated in the Bill of Rights.” Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342, 352 , 110 S.Ct. 668 , 107 L.Ed.2d 708 (1990). State law violates the Due Process Clause only if “it offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.” Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37, 43 , 116 S.Ct. 2013 , 135 L.Ed.2d 361 (1996). Contrary to Wolffs assertions, it is not “clearly established Federal law” that the admission of propensity evidence violates due process.…