Chavez

MEMORANDUM *

David Israel Chavez appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 , challenging the constitutionality of his three state court convictions for aiding and abetting first degree *343 murder. Chavez argues that the state court (1) applied Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), in an objectively unreasonable manner in concluding that sufficient evidence supported his convictions; and (2) violated his constitutional due process rights by denying his motion for a new trial premised on “newly discovered evidence” in the form of Jesus Cantu’s testimony in another trial. Reviewing his petition de novo, but subject to the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, we affirm.

The California Court of Appeal’s application of Jackson was not objectively unreasonable. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Chavez aided and abetted Cantu in the murders of Connie Estala, Gilberto Soto, and Gerald MeCullen. See…