Garcia

Garcia v. Schriro

Good Law
176 F. App'x 776
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 12, 2006No. 05-16508California323 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Petitioner Rudolfo Garcia seeks habeas relief from his conviction of four counts of child molestation and sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment. The facts and procedural history are known the parties, and we do not recount them here.

First, we reject Garcia’s claim that the trial court’s admission of prior videotaped testimony by Garcia’s two stepdaughters violated his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights, because it was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). In Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 59 n. 9, 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), the Supreme Court concluded that “when the declarant appears for cross-examination at trial, the Confrontation Clause places no constraints at all on the use of his prior testimonial statements.” Here, both declarants testified at trial and were subject to cross-examination by counsel.

Second, we reject Garcia’s claim that trial counsel’s failure to present character testimony was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), and its progeny. The state trial court…

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.