Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
AARON AGUIRRE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DAVE DAVEY, Warden, Pelican Bay State Prison, Respondent-Appellee.
MEMORANDUM*
Aaron Aguirre (“Aguirre”) appeals the district court's judgment denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we AFFIRM.
With respect to the only certified issue on appeal – whether the trial court's denial of Aguirre's motion for a new trial violated his due process rights – we note it does not appear this claim was fairly presented to the California Court of Appeal or the California Supreme Court and may therefore implicate exhaustion concerns. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). However, under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2), we may deny an unexhausted claim on the merits “when it is perfectly clear that the applicant does not raise even a colorable federal claim.” Cassett v. Stewart, 406 F.3d 614, 624 (9th Cir. 2005). Aguirre has failed to demonstrate that the trial court's denial of his motion for a new trial violated his due process rights or otherwise prevented him from presenting a complete defense.
The district court did not certify Aguirre's remaining claims and we therefore construe them as a motion to broaden the certificate of appealability. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e). We deny the motion. See Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104 (9th Cir.1999) (per curium) (explaining that broadening a certificate of appealability requires a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right”) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)).
AFFIRMED.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 15-56019
Decided: February 17, 2017
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)