Brown

Brown v. Roe

Good Law
136 F. App'x 980
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 29, 2005No. 04-17324; D.C. No. CV-99-02360-DFL/JFMCalifornia655 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Donyel Brown seeks federal habeas corpus relief on grounds that the evidence does not support his conviction for first degree murder. The issue is whether the facts support a conviction for first degree murder under California law and under our standard of review. Concluding that they do, we affirm.

The Supreme Court has held that insufficiency of the evidence can support a claim for federal habeas corpus relief only where the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, is such that no rational finder of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). We do not decide whether the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d), makes our review even more deferential to the state court decision than the Jackson standard imposes, but instead assume that Brown must at least meet the Jackson “no rational trier of fact” standard and affirm on that basis. See Garcia v. Carey, 395 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir.2005).

Sufficiency claims in § 2254 proceedings must be determined by looking to the…

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.