Clements

MEMORANDUM **

Richard Allen Clements (“Clements”) appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Clements contends that California Vehicle Code § 2800.2 creates an unconstitutional mandatory presumption. The California Court of Appeal’s decision was not contrary to clearly established Federal law, and thus we affirm. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d).

1. Mandatory Presumption

Jury instructions relieving the state of the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, every element of the charged offense violate a defendant’s due process rights. Carella v. California, 491 U.S. 263, 265 , 109 S.Ct. 2419 , 105 L.Ed.2d 218 (1989) (citing In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, *57 364 , 90 S.Ct. 1068 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970); Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307, 309 , 105 S.Ct. 1965 , 85 L.Ed.2d 344 (1985); see also Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 , 99 S.Ct. 2450 , 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979)). In accordance with California Vehicle Code § 2800.2(b), Clements’ jury was instructed that “a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property includes, but is not limited to, driving while fleeing or attempting to elude a pursuing peace officer during which time either…