Bogle

Bogle v. Galaza

Good Law
38 F. App'x 437
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 21, 2002No. 01-16377; D.C. No. CV-99-01498-WBSCalifornia507 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

James Bogle was convicted under California state law of two counts of murder and one count of arson, with the special circumstance of the commission of multiple murders. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, and was denied relief by the state courts on direct review and on his state habeas petitions. He appeals the district court’s denial of his federal habeas petition. We review under AEDPA, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 .

Bogle first contends that the trial court erred in giving a felony murder instruction because there was insufficient evidence of a robbery, that is theft by force or fear. Under California law, as recently reiterated by this court, “when one kills another and takes substantial property from the victim, it is ordinarily reasonable to presume the killing was for purposes of robbery.” People v. Turner, 50 Cal.3d 668 , 268 Cal.Rptr. 706 , 789 P.2d 887, 895 (Cal.1990) (In Bank). See Hernandez v. Small, 282 F.3d 1132, 1144 (9th Cir.2002). There was evidence that Bogle committed the killings, and that he had stolen substantial property of the victims. Therefore, it was not error for the trial court to give the felony murder…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.