Kasper v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Matthew Kas-per appeals the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. He argues there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for attempted robbery and assault with a firearm. We review de novo the district court’s order denying habeas relief. Juan H. v. Allen, 408 F.3d 1262 , 1269 n. 7 (9th Cir.2005). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Pursuant to the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, “we apply the standards of Jackson with an additional layer of deference.” Juan H., 408 F.3d at 1274 (citing § 2254(d)).

Petitioner argues the victim’s in-court identification of him was unreliable and that the victim was not credible. Our review of the record shows there was sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable fact finder to…