Mainor

Mainor v. Hornung

Good Law
113 F. App'x 247
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 3, 2004No. 03-55737; D.C. No. CV-01-01683-JNKCalifornia634 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Mainor appeals from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.

The record sufficiently supports Mainor’s conviction pursuant to California Penal Code § 182(a)(1) for conspiring to commit robbery in concert. The facts as set forth by the California Court of Appeal indicate that the Honda was spotted by the police helicopter shortly after it fled Wolfs residence; the Honda was in police view from that time until Mainor was arrested at the border; Mainor was seated in the back seat area, where the flex-cuffs and duct tape were discovered; all four men in the car were wearing dark clothing; two 12-gauge shotgun shells were discovered in the trunk of the vehicle; and one witness testified that he saw Mainor toss two ski masks under the car. “[VJiewmg the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution,” a rational trier of fact could have found Mainor guilty of this offense. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).

Likewise, there is sufficient evidence to support Mainor’s conviction for assault with a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.