Thomas Esparza v. Domingo Uribe, Jr.

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Thomas Espar-za appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo the district court’s decision to deny Esparza’s habeas petition, see Clabourne v. Ryan, 745 F.3d 362, 370 (9th Cir.2014), and we affirm.

Esparza argues that the state court unreasonably applied the law clearly established in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), when it held that there was sufficient evidence to support a gang enhancement under California Penal Code § 186.22(b)(1).

Esparza cannot overcome the double layer of deference we must afford the state court’s assessment of the sufficiency of the evidence. See Coleman v. Johnson, — U.S. —, 132 S.Ct. 2060, 2062 , 182 L.Ed.2d 978 (2012) (“We have made clear that Jackson claims face a high bar in federal habeas proceedings because they are subject to two layers of judicial deference.”). The California Court of Appeal reasonably determined that the gang expert supplied evidence sufficient for the jury to find that (1) Esparza robbed the victim “for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in…