Cortez-Ochoa

Cortez-Ochoa v. Piler

Good Law
43 F. App'x 2
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 22, 2002No. 01-16943; D.C. No. CV-00-04478-CWCalifornia1,078 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Artemio Cortez Ochoa (“Petitioner”), a California prisoner, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his conviction of second-degree murder with personal use of a firearm. Because the relevant facts are known to the parties, we do not recite them here. Petitioner argues that the state trial court violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process and his Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury by presenting inadequate jury instructions. We disagree. Because Petitioner cannot demonstrate that the state court’s adjudication of the merits “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1), we affirm.

I

Petitioner contends that the court erred (1) in failing to sua sponte instruct the jury that imperfect self-defense could negate implied malice and (2) in instructing the jury that voluntary manslaughter required a finding of intent to kill. These errors, he argues, prevented the jury from properly considering his theory that imperfect self-defense should result in a…

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.