Malcolm Beamon v. L. E. Scribner

MEMORANDUM

Malcolm Beamon appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We conclude that the California Court of Appeal’s determination on instructional error was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). We also conclude that the California Court of Appeal erroneously determined that no sentencing error had occurred, but the court’s error was harmless because the jury would have found one aggravating factor beyond a reasonable doubt. We affirm.

The California courts did not err, let alone unreasonably, in concluding that Beamon had not established the basis for a duress defense. Beamon failed to provide any evidence that a reasonable person would fear his life was in immediate danger as required for an instruction on duress. CALCRIM No. 4.40 (emphasis added). Under California law, threats and fear of future danger are not sufficient to warrant an instruction on duress. Id. Beamon only provided testimony of vague, future threats of harm. Given that Beam-on played an active role in the robbery, the trial court’s failure to instruct on duress did not “have a…