Matthew Kasper v. California Department of Corrections , 539 F. App'x 804 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 30 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MATTHEW KASPER, No. 10-56527
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-02673-VAP-
RNB
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MEMORANDUM*
CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION
and KELLY HARRINGTON, Warden,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 28, 2013**
Pasadena, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, BEA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Matthew Kasper appeals the district court’s order
denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. He argues there was insufficient
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
evidence to support his conviction for attempted robbery and assault with a
firearm. We review de novo the district court’s order denying habeas relief. Juan
H. v. Allen, 408 F.3d 1262, 1269 n.7 (9th Cir. 2005). We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider
“whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution,
any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime
beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).
Pursuant to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, “we apply
the standards of Jackson with an additional layer of deference.” Juan H., 408 F.3d
at 1274 (citing § 2254(d)).
Petitioner argues the victim’s in-court identification of him was unreliable
and that the victim was not credible. Our review of the record shows there was
sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable fact finder to convict petitioner. It was
the jury’s task to weigh the victim’s credibility. Guy v. City of San Diego, 608
F.3d 582, 585 (9th Cir. 2010). Conflicting evidence was introduced regarding the
description of the suspects, but the victim’s description was consistent with
petitioner’s appearance. And the record contains reasons to doubt the probative
value of the victim’s failure to identify petitioner in a photographic lineup. We
2
must presume the jury “resolved any . . . conflicts in favor of the prosecution.”
Jackson, 443 U.S. at 326.
Some of the evidence against petitioner was circumstantial. For example,
petitioner admitted he was present at the incident. But the state court’s
determination that the evidence was sufficient to support petitioner’s conviction is
not “contrary to” or “an unreasonable application” of Jackson and is not “based on
an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the
State court proceeding.” § 2254(d). Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
3