Marcella Lunsford v. Tina Hornbeak

Good Law
665 F. App'x 563
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 1, 201614-17548California1,374 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Marcella Lunsford, a California state prisoner, appeals from the district court’s denial of her petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In her petition, Lunsford challenges her convictions for first degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder. As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), we may grant relief only when a state court’s adjudication of a claim “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” or “that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d).

1. Lunsford argues that the state trial court’s first degree murder instruction violated due process because it improperly allowed the jury to return a guilty verdict if it concluded, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the murder was committed to kill a witness. The Supreme Court has made clear that an instructional error…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.