David Thorpe v. Charles P. Gillingham, Sheriff of Santa Clara County

967 F.2d 591 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. David THORPE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles P. GILLINGHAM, Sheriff of Santa Clara County, Respondent-Appellee. No. 91-15578. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted June 23, 1992. * Decided June 26, 1992. Before FLETCHER, LEAVY and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 David Thorpe appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his conviction for attempted receipt of stolen property under Cal.Penal Code §§ 664 and 496. We review de novo. Norris v. Risley, 878 F.2d 1178, 1180 (9th Cir.1989). We affirm. 3 Thorpe raises two claims of error; both are meritless. First, Thorpe claims that he was denied due process because no statute defines his conduct as a crime. Second, Thorpe claims that he was denied due process because Cal.Penal Code §§ 664 and 496, the California statutes under which he was convicted, are void for…