Larry Lechuga v. D. Sisto, et al, No. 10-15627 (9th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED FEB 23 2011 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LARRY MANUEL LECHUGA, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 10-15627 D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00487-JAM v. MEMORANDUM * D. K. SISTO and JOHN W. HAVILAND, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 15, 2011 ** Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Larry Manuel Lechuga appeals pro se 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). Lechuga contends that the state court excluded evidence in violation of his constitutional rights. However, in light of the unreliability of the evidence, Lechuga has failed to demonstrate that the state court s decision was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, Supreme Court law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319, 326 (2006) ( well-established rules of evidence permit trial judges to exclude evidence if its probative value is outweighed by certain other factors such as unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or potential to mislead the jury ); Chia v. Cambra, 360 F.3d 997, 1003 (9th Cir. 2004) (applying a balancing test to determine whether the exclusion of evidence in the trial court violated petitioner s due process rights, weighing the importance of the evidence against the state s interest in exclusion ). AFFIRMED. 2 10-15627

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.