D. BLANKENSHIP, JR. V. LEONARD VARE, No. 12-15484 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on January 12, 2016.
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 2 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT D. E. BLANKENSHIP, Jr., Petitioner - Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 12-15484 D.C. No. 3:08-cv-00641-LRHVPC v. LEONARD VARE; NEVADA ATTORNEY GENERAL, MEMORANDUM * Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted November 16, 2015 San Francisco, California Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge and IKUTA and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Donald Blankenship, who was convicted in Nevada state court of sexually assaulting his daughter, appeals the district court’s denial of 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas relief. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. 1. The conclusion of the Nevada Supreme Court that Blankenship “failed to show that there was a reasonable probability of a different result at trial” had testimony regarding certain prior bad acts not been elicited by defense counsel was not an unreasonable application of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). The victim testified in detail as to each assault, and the case turned on her credibility. The testimony about prior bad acts was a minor portion of the evidence that the jury heard, and the state did not mention the bad acts in summation. Fairminded jurists could thus “disagree on the correctness of the state court’s decision.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 101 (2011) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 2. We decline to expand the certificate of appealability and therefore do not address Blankenship’s remaining arguments. AFFIRMED. 2
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.
