Strain

MEMORANDUM *

Maurice Strain was convicted of the attempted robbery and assault with a deadly weapon of John Jernigan in 1997. 1 He asserts a due process claim and a confrontation clause claim.

Strain’s due process claim is procedurally deficient. It was not presented to *673 the state courts as an issue of federal law and was decided solely on the basis of state law. Accordingly, the claim is unexhausted and fails to properly present a federal question. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 , 112 S.Ct. 475 , 116 L.Ed.2d 885 (1991) (“[I]t is not the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine state-court determinations on state-law questions.”); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 , 92 S.Ct. 509 , 30 L.Ed.2d 438 (1971) (stating that a “federal claim must be fairly presented to the state courts”).

Even if the due process claim were exhausted, we would deny it because the California Court of Appeal did not unreasonably determine, in violation of clearly established federal law, that Strain was not prejudiced by the alleged violation for the following reasons singly and collectively: Strain failed to explain why with reasonable diligence he was unable to produce the…