# Dale Dugger v. Edmund Brown, Jr.

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · February 24, 2012 · 469 F. App'x 534

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/623611

## Case

- **Full name:** Dale W. DUGGER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Edmund G. BROWN, Jr., California Attorney General; Et Al., Respondents-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** February 24, 2012
- **Citations:** 469 F. App'x 534
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Fernandez, McKeown, Bybee
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/623611

## Opinion text

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 24 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/623611. Public record. Not legal advice.