Dorsey

MEMORANDUM *

Mark Edward Dorsey appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. Dorsey argues that the state trial court violated his right to due process by erroneously instructing the jury on the elements of kidnapping for robbery. Specifically, Dorsey contends that the trial court’s instructions improper *84 ly commanded the jury to consider movement of Dorsey’s two victims that was “incidental” to the underlying robbery crime. People v. Rayford, 9 Cal.4th 1 , 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 317 , 884 P.2d 1369, 1374 (1994) (“Kidnapping for robbery ... requires movement of the victim that is not merely incidental to the commission of the robbery, and which substantially increases the risk of harm over and above that necessarily present in the crime of robbery itself.”); see also People v. Daniels, 71 Cal.2d 1119 , 80 Cal.Rptr. 897 , 459 P.2d 225, 238 (1969) (same). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

We are convinced that any instructional error committed by the trial court did not have a “substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 623 , 113 S.Ct. 1710…