Salazar

Salazar v. Adams

Good Law
291 F. App'x 57
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 19, 2008No. 07-15745California526 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

In 2002, a jury convicted Petitioner Richard Rangel Salazar of aggravated sexual assault on a child under fourteen years of age and more than ten years younger than Salazar, in violation of California Penal Code § 269, and two counts of forcible lewd and lascivious conduct on a child under fourteen years of age, in violation of California Penal Code § 288(b)(1). The trial court sentenced Salazar to sixty years to life imprisonment. In 2005, after the California Court of Appeal upheld his conviction and the Supreme Court of California denied review without comment, Salazar filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . See Parle v. Runnels, 505 F.3d 922, 926 (9th Cir.2007) (finding “[w]here as here, the state supreme court denies review of a *59 prisoner’s habeas petition without comment, we ‘look to the last reasoned state-court decision’ ”). The district court denied his petition, and we affirm.

Salazar first contends that the trial court improperly admitted “fresh complaint testimony” from the children’s caregivers, and that their testimony was inadmissible hearsay. The California Court of Appeal held that even if it were error to…

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.