FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 30 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSEPH GRICE, No. 12-17411
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:07-cv-02490-PJH
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JOHN MARSHALL,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 25, 2014**
Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Joseph Grice appeals from the district court’s
judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review a district court’s denial of a
habeas corpus petition de novo, see Stanley v. Cullen, 633 F.3d 852, 859 (9th Cir.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2011), and we affirm.
Grice contends that the trial court violated his rights to present a defense and
to confrontation under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments when it limited
Grice’s ability to cross-examine a prosecution witness with her prior misdemeanor
arrests and convictions. The California Court of Appeal’s rejection of this claim
was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal
law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see Michigan v. Lucas, 500 U.S. 145, 151 (1991)
(“Restrictions on a criminal defendant’s rights to confront adverse witnesses and to
present evidence may not be arbitrary or disproportionate to the purposes they are
designed to serve.” (internal quotations omitted)).
Grice’s petition to the district court also alleged that (1) his trial counsel was
ineffective for failing to discover and present evidence of the victim’s violent
history, and (2) the trial court violated his right to present a defense when it
excluded testimony about Grice’s pre-trial custodial status. The district court
issued a certificate of appealability as to these issues. On appeal, Grice’s counsel
states that no further briefing is necessary. Our independent review of the record
pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds
for relief on these claims.
AFFIRMED.
2 12-17411