Umali
Umali v. Lamarque
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Eric Ayran Umali asserts that a California state court misstated and incorrectly applied the state law definition of insanity when it found him legally sane at the time he committed attempted murder and willful injury of a child. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and affirm the district court’s denial of Mr. Umali’s habeas petition. We recount only the facts relevant to our decision.
A federal court may grant a state prisoner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus only if the state court’s adjudication of the petitioner’s claims was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court law. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d).
The applicable legal standard for sanity is defined by California state law. Federal habeas courts do not re-examine state court determinations of state law questions; rather, the petitioner must show that the proceedings were so fundamentally unfair that the defendant was denied due process. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68, 71-73 , 112 S.Ct. 475 , 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991); Hicks v. Oklahoma, 447 U.S. 343, 346 , 100 S.Ct. 2227 , 65 L.Ed.2d 175 (1980); Sandstrom v. Montana, 442…