Yuriar
Yuriar v. Attorney General of the State of California
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Petitioner Jose Yuriar (“Yuriar”) appeals the district court’s denial of his habe *627 as corpus petition. Yuriar’s petition raises a constitutional challenge to his state court conviction, following a jury trial, of attempted robbery and murder of an undercover police officer.
Because we deal here with a habeas petition seeking review of a state court judgment, the scope of our review is limited. In this context, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) requires that for a federal court to grant a habeas petition, the state court must have incorrectly and unreasonably applied “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” or must have made an “unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). Also, in evaluating the issue of discriminatory intent, we are mindful that “a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct. The applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (e)(1).