Godbouldt

MEMORANDUM *

Clarence Godbouldt (“Godbouldt”) appeals from the district court’s decision denying his habeas corpus petition. We affirm.

Godbouldt contends there was insufficient evidence of “sustained fear” to support his conviction for making criminal threats under California Penal Code section 422. Under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), a reviewing court must view the evidence at trial in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether any rational juror could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If the jury could draw competing inferences from the evidence, the reviewing court must draw them in favor of conviction. See McMillan v. Gomez, 19 F.3d 465, 469 (9th Cir.1994). Under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), our review is doubly deferential, both to the jury’s verdict and to the California Court of Appeal’s conclusion that there was sufficient evidence to support that verdict. See Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 75 , 123 S.Ct. 1166 , 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003) (habeas relief is appropriate if state court’s application of law is more than incorrect or erroneous; it…