questions.” Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991). Our role in a § 2254 proceeding is “to review state criminal proceedings for compliance with federal constitutional mandates.” Lackawanna County Dist. Attorney v. Coss, 532 U.S. 394, 403, 121 S.Ct. 1567, 149 L.Ed.2d 608 (2001). Johnston relies on State v. Debler, 856 S.W.2d 641 (Mo.1993) (en banc), to support his argument to this Court that he is entitled to habeas relief because the prior unconvicted crimes evidence would not have been admitted if trial counsel had made a timely objection. The Missouri Supreme Court rejected Johnston’s claim, and it has squarely rejected the basis for his argument in similar circumstances. See, e.g., State v. Ervin, 979 S.W.2d 149, 158 (Mo.1998) (en banc) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1169, 119 S.Ct. 1090,
holding that trial court erred by not allowing the plaintiff to introduce evidence of prior dealings with the defendant holding that the government may not be permitted to introduce other crimes evidence in its case in chief to prove intent unless the defense disputes intent during opening statements holding that on resentencing following reversal the state was required to introduce evidence to prove the defendant qualified for an enhanced sentence and could not only rely upon evidence introduced at a prior sentencing hearing holding that evidence of violent crimes and other illegal activities of defendants gang was not unduly prejudicial because defendant was not directly implicated and the evidence was probative of elements of the crimes that the defendant was charged with holding that the error in debler was lack of notice that the state intended to introduce certain prior unconvicted crimes evidence