Valencia

Valencia v. Cambra

Good Law
107 F. App'x 781
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 19, 2004No. 03-16763; D.C. No. CV-97-00703-MCE/JFMCalifornia549 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner-Appellant Angel Valencia (“Valencia”) was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the murder of another inmate. Valencia now appeals the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition on the grounds that: (1) The district court erred in determining that the state trial court’s denial of the state prosecutor’s motion to dismiss was not a due process violation; and (2) The district court erred in determining that the state trial court did not violate Valencia’s due process rights by ordering him shackled during the jury trial.

A criminal conviction may violate due process if it is obtained through perjured testimony that the prosecutor knows to be false or later discovers to be false and allows to go uncorrected. See Napue v. People of the State of Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269-270 , 79 S.Ct. 1173 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959). But Valencia’s claim fails because although there was some inconsistency between the officers’ testimony, the prosecutor did not know if such testimony was in fact perjurious.

*783 Turning to Valencia’s shackling claim, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, a defendant in a criminal…

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.