DALE DUGGER V. EDMUND BROWN, JR., No. 11-16432 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED FEB 24 2012 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DALE W. DUGGER, No. 11-16432 Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:07-cv-02674-BJR v. MEMORANDUM * EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr., California Attorney General; et al., Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Barbara Jacobs Rothstein, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 21, 2012 ** Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Dale W. Dugger appeals from the district court s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm. * 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). Dugger contends that the state trial court deprived him of his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to present a defense when it precluded testimony, pursuant to California Evidence Code § 352, related to the reputation of the law enforcement rangers who arrested him. Contrary to Dugger s contention, the record reflects that the California Court of Appeal, which rendered the last reasoned state court decision in this case, addressed Dugger s federal constitutional claim. Accordingly, we do not review Dugger s claim de novo, as we would if the state court had clearly indicated that it had not reached the merits of his claim. See Murdoch v. Castro, 609 F.3d 983, 990 n.6 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc). Dugger is not entitled to habeas relief based on the trial court s exclusion of reputation testimony because Dugger cannot maintain that the discretionary exclusion of this testimony warrants federal habeas relief under clearly established federal law. See Moses v. Payne, 555 F.3d 742, 757-60 (9th Cir. 2009). The Supreme Court has not established a controlling legal standard to evaluate discretionary decisions involving such evidence. See id. at 758-59 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). AFFIRMED. 2 11-16432
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
