Whether California state courts violated petitioner's constitutional rights by admitting propensity evidence and convicting for assault with a deadly weapon

No question identified. : auesiwcs) presea /to 5 WOULD UldlTED STATES SUPREME C&UllT CaJEAAST CERT! DR ARI REVIEU DM ASSt^Dr LT W/Trf DSTLW \MEAfbM CJMZtaZT ANU VACATE STATES toUR7 yS COMU^-riDM BASZTO Oh! PROPENSITY EYlDErttg WALATiONS 1 HAVA TlZIflL JUDAS' AM0 LOUILT OF APPEALS Ftfftz THIS STATE OF LAlYFOHtiiA MSUSE ITS J7I5LSAT/Z5/V Z3Y LuLfiZ/fl^A PROPENSITY i£V)DEME DURJJifh, WT> ASSAULT 71Z/AL . \rJERE tALllMlA 5W SUPPJsMA M THE Rl&MT /N'DEPZlYiNO PiTMTMM& DP PLWPAM&NTAL CJM/STLTim&filM. RiCiHT T6 A PAlU TA1WL VJMN !7 LShlXHATED IZ/15£T> DM & MGH" tO^SiOJSWtd. WAH/ZTK. OF 1 Wi/HAT 15 U.H171SD STA^t, SUPRSfllS OoUR,r RULES PM PR&PS7Z S7MDARD fOR. WMV ’)nl& RIGU7I ] ARE STATE'S LdURT RESEVTIOA) (sp PETITFEDiSPTiL DDIS7 P&&C.S3S AMP ISTkiJii'L pRO TE'CTlOiJ CLAUSE AS MODS tbMT/ZA/L7 To CLlThRUJ tSiTaaUsi^lTD RULITS J U&VZT mu 1ZO% Ml A 7XZA4 COUR.T P1OLAT&D PE'tiTliiM&SpS TtlAiiT TO A FAiR T%i&U iM htU5£DlhJ&, 7b puis PZOAISSS ALAUSiT AOtrni-TT^JiHa EVIP&WUZ' && TAloR UtDUFkJCiULlflES T CJUj STPffE 'm/liL£AJ1^ >tSWAIVE CDAtSTlTUTloMflU RiAtiTS AMO CxiUfLT£>P AFA/TALA HbWHTO RiMTA A5 tnuclT 1 ILI&RC Tti&VR Aft? A&USS oF DfS LRSTl-bM Uii&tf A&OSEClSTOR OoMVMZTSD PffTTllOHZ-~ R'5 PbA ASSPULT UfTU A DEADLY ESSAPbJd f^H^ARM 1