Mendoza
Mendoza v. Runnels
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Frank Mendoza appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. This court granted a certificate of appealability on two issues: (1) whether a juror’s misconduct substantially and injuriously impacted the verdict; and (2) whether the admission of a non-testifying co-defendant’s post-arrest statements substantially and injuriously impacted the jury’s verdict. The parties also briefed two uncertified issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support Mendoza’s murder conviction; and (2) whether the trial court properly instructed the jury on California’s natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine.
We have jurisdiction to address the certified issues under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c). *408 We exercise jurisdiction of the uncertified issues because petitioner has made the requisite “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” under 28 U.S.C. § 2258 (e)(2). Because this case reaches us on post-AEDPA habeas review, we must determine whether the state court’s adjudication of Mendoza’s claim was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, Supreme Court precedent. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d).