Carapia v. Marshall

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 07-56799 · 2010-01-08 · Unpublished

Tony Jose CARAPIA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John MARSHALL, Warden, Respondent-Appellee

Area: other
Panel: Alfred T. Goodwin (author), William T. Wallace, Raymond C. Fisher

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 08 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TONY JOSE CARAPIA, No. 07-56799 Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. CV-06-00629-NAJ v. MEMORANDUM * JOHN MARSHALL, Warden, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Napoleon A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 15, 2009 ** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Tony Jose Carapia appeals from the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

* 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).

SM S/Research Carapia contends there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding he committed the offense “for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with” a criminal street gang and “with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in any criminal conduct by gang members” under California Penal Code section 186.22(b)(1). The record reflects that the state court’s rejection of this claim was neither contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 (1979). The record further demonstrates that the state court’s decision was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings. See 28 U.S.C.

§2254(d)(2).

AFFIRMED.

SMS/Research 2 07-56799