Ferguson
Ferguson v. Newland
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Kenneth Ferguson appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his state conviction for torture. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and we review de novo the district court’s denial of a section 2254 petition. Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir.1999). We affirm.
Ferguson first contends that the district court erred by denying his petition based on insufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction. The record, however, indicates that a reasonable juror could have found the essential elements of the crime of torture beyond a reasonable doubt. 1 See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19, 326 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (deciding that a federal habeas court must presume that the trier of fact’s resolution of any conflicting inferences was made in the prosecution’s favor).
Ferguson further contends that the trial court erred by admitting bad character evidence on the grounds that such evidence rendered his trial fundamentally unfair. To the extent that the state court’s ruling is cognizable in federal habeas, see Jammal v. Van de Kamp, 926 F.2d 918, 919-20 (9th Cir.1991), the…