Reed

Reed v. Runnels

Good Law
143 F. App'x 799
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 10, 2005No. 04-15209California1,054 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Petitioner Jackson Quincy Reed was convicted in 1999 in California of robbery and attempted robbery with the special allegation that a principal was armed with a firearm. Reed appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition.

Reed’s petition is governed by the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). We review de novo the district court’s denial of a habeas petition. Lockhart v. Terhune, 250 F.3d 1223, 1228 (9th Cir.2001). AEDPA permits relief only if the state court decision was “contrary to” or “involved an unreasonable application of’ clearly established law as determined by the Supreme Court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d).

I

Reed argues that there was insufficient evidence to convict him because none of the witnesses could positively identify him as one of the robbers and because Hooper, a key witness, was not credible and did not have any direct knowledge that Reed was one of the robbers.

The state court correctly decided that, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.…

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.