Carolyn Exum v. State of Oregon

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Carolyn Exum appeals the district court’s denial of her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging her guilty plea to the murder of her husband. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

1. We turn first to Exum’s claim that the district court erred in deferring to the state post-conviction court’s credibility determination, which was based on documentary evidence rather than live testimony. According to Exum, deference was improper because the state court’s fact-finding process “resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(2); see also Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F.3d 992, 999 (9th Cir.2004) (“[A] federal court may not second-guess a state court’s fact-finding process unless, after review of the state-court record, it determines that the state court was not merely wrong, but actually unreasonable.”). However, as we recently noted,

Hibbler v. Benedetti, 693 F.3d 1140, 1147 (9th Cir.2012).

Here, the state post-conviction court could have reasonably concluded that there was sufficient evidence in the record to…