Abernathy

Abernathy v. Terhune

Good Law
60 F. App'x 143
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 12, 2003No. 02-15812; D.C. No. CV-98-0548 EJGCalifornia1,012 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Christian Matthew Abernathy appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Abernathy was convicted of first degree murder, robbery, attempted robbery, and assault in California state court. He seeks federal habeas relief on the grounds that errors in the jury instructions deprived him of due process and his right to jury trial, and that under principles of Eighth Amendment law explained in Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 , 107 S.Ct. 1676 , 95 L.Ed.2d 127 (1986), which have been incorporated into California law, there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. Habeas relief is not available unless the underlying state court decision was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court. Early v. Packer, ___ U.S. ___, 123 S.Ct. 362, 366 , 154 L.Ed.2d 263 (2002). We review de novo the decision to grant or deny a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. See Benn v. Lambert, 283 F.3d 1040, 1051 (9th Cir.2002). Findings of fact made by the district court are reviewed for clear error. Killian v. Poole, 282 F.3d 1204, 1207 (9th Cir.2002). State court findings of fact are…

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.