Rowe

MEMORANDUM **

Habeas relief is not warranted in this case, because Rowe fails to establish his sole contention — that the California Court of Appeal’s decision constitutes an “unreasonable application of’ clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court. See Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 407-11 , 120 S.Ct. 1495 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000).

There is no dispute that the second jury instruction given at Rowe’s trial was erroneous under People v. Beeman, 35 Cal.3d 547 , 199 Cal.Rptr. 60 , 674 P.2d 1318, 1326 (1984), because it omitted one element of the charged crime. However, because we must view this instruction “in the context of the overall charge” given to the jury, Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. 141, 147 , 94 S.Ct. 396 , 38 L.Ed.2d 368 (1973), we are persuaded that the California Court of Appeal did not err in determining that the jury instruction error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 15 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999); California v. Roy, 519 U.S. 2, 4-5 , 117 S.Ct. 337 , 136 L.Ed.2d 266 (1996). Considering in context the overall jury charge, which included the trial court’s instruction under CALJIC 3.01 that…