Jarvell Smart v. A. Hedgpeth

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner-appellant Jarvell Deandre Smart appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his California conviction for aiding and abetting two counts of assault with a firearm and one count of shooting at an occupied vehicle. We have jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

Smart claims that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction based on aiding and abetting liability. We review the California Court of Appeal’s denial of this claim on the merits under the deferential standard of review set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). Although the California court cited only state law, the California standard for reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim is the same as the established federal constitutional standard, see People v. Johnson, 26 Cal.3d 557 , 162 Cal.Rptr. 431 , 606 P.2d 738, 750 (1980) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)). Thus the rejection of Smart’s identical state claim necessarily answered the federal constitutional question.

The state court’s determination that there was sufficient evidence of aiding and abetting was not contrary to, or an…