Little

Little v. Runnels

Good Law
235 F. App'x 396
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 23, 2007No. 04-17388California859 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Antoine Dupre Little appeals from an order issued by the District Court for the Northern District of California denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Little argues on appeal that: (1) the admission of a prior uncharged robbery violated his due process rights; (2) the admission of hearsay testimony during the gang participation enhancement portion of his trial violated his confrontation rights under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004); (3) his trial counsel was ineffective; and (4) the cumulative effect of the above errors denied him a fair trial. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and affirm the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Given the parties’ familiarity with the facts, we do not recount them in detail here. Little was convicted of robbery, two counts of assault with a deadly weapon and two counts of false imprisonment. The jury also found that the California gang participation enhancement applied to Little. On appeal, the California Court of Appeals struck down an enhancement for use of a weapon imposed against Little, but otherwise upheld his convictions,…

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.