FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 29 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S . CO U RT OF AP PE A LS
STEVEN CLAY JACKSON, No. 05-56645
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. CV-02-00867-DT
Central District of California,
v. Riverside
DERRAL ADAMS, Warden California
Substance Abuse Treatment Facility State ORDER
Prison Corcoran; et al.,
Respondents - Appellees.
Before: GRABER, GOULD, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The memorandum disposition filed on April 17, 2009, is withdrawn. A
replacement memorandum disposition will be filed concurrently with this order.
The pending petition for rehearing is granted and no further petitions for
review will be entertained.
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 29 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S . CO U RT OF AP PE A LS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEVEN CLAY JACKSON, No. 05-56645
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. CV-02-00867-DT
v.
MEMORANDUM *
DERRAL ADAMS, Warden California
Substance Abuse Treatment Facility State
Prison Corcoran; et al.,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dicµran M. Tevrizian, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 13, 2009**
Before: GRABER, GOULD, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Steven Clay Jacµson appeals from the district
court's judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. y 2254 habeas petition. Petitioner's
October 5, 2008, notice of appeal is timely under the district court's order granting
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
leave to file out of time. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). We have jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. yy 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.
Jacµson argues that his confrontation clause objection is not procedurally
defaulted under California law. We need not decide the procedural default issue
because this claim fails on the merits. On de novo review, we hold that the trial
court did not err in ruling that Jacµson had an opportunity and the proper incentive
to cross-examine his accusers in the preliminary hearing where the testimony of
these witnesses and the investigating detective were heard before they became
unavailable. See California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 151 (1970). Even if there
were a confrontation clause violation, the error was harmless in light of Jacµson's
confessions and the other evidence of his guilt. See Forn v. Hornung, 343 F.3d
990, 999 (9th Cir. 2003).
AFFIRMED.
2