Ronnie Vera v. Charles Ryan

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Ronnie Roy Vera appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . He raises five arguments that the Arizona state court unreasonably applied federal Constitutional law in affirming his conviction and sentence. We address each argument in turn.

The state court did not unreasonably apply the Supreme Courts’ decision in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), in finding that there was sufficient evidence to convict Vera of participating in the burglary which was the underlying felony for the felony murder conviction. Under AEDPA, we apply the standards of Jackson with an additional layer of deference. See Juan H. v. Allen, 408 F.3d 1262, 1274 (9th Cir.2005). Applying that doubly deferential standard, it was not unreasonable to hold that there was sufficient evidence to find that Vera intended to aid and abet the burglary.

Vera’s confession was not obtained in violation of clearly established law under either Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) or due process voluntariness. The warnings given to Vera were clear and concise, and…