Lundquist

*715 MEMORANDUM *

Thomas Lundquist appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus. We review the denial of a habeas petition de novo. See Powell v. Lambert, 357 F.3d 871, 874 (9th Cir.2004).

Contrary to the State’s argument, Lundquist does not seek the benefit of a new rule of law in violation of Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989). It was clearly established by the Supreme Court at the time Lundquist’s conviction became final that jury instructions may not be so infirm as to rob the defendant of the right to have every element of the charged crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt. See Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307, 313-14 , 105 S.Ct. 1965 , 85 L.Ed.2d 344 (1985); Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 521 , 99 S.Ct. 2450 , 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979). It was further clearly established that verdict forms are part of the overall charge given to the jury. See Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367, 375-76 , 108 S.Ct. 1860 , 100 L.Ed.2d 384 (1988). Teague therefore does not bar Lundquist’s claim.

Lundquist is not entitled to habeas relief, however. The decision of the Supreme Court of Idaho that Lundquist’s constitutional rights were…