Carlos Amezcua v. Joe Lizarraga
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (district judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — AFFIRMED.
- Area
- civil
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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 16 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS AMEZCUA, No. 19-55910 Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:18-cv-01317-GPC-MSB v. JOE A. LIZARRAGA, Warden; XAVIER MEMORANDUM* BECERRA, Respondents-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Gonzalo P. Curiel, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 14, 2021** Pasadena, California Before: M. SMITH and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and STEELE,*** District Judge.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable John E. Steele, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation. California prisoner Carlos Amezcua appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We have jurisdiction pursuant to § 2253(a) and affirm.
Because “a state court’s interpretation of state law, including one announced on direct appeal of the challenged conviction, binds a federal court sitting in habeas corpus,” Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74, 76 (2005) (per curiam), we are bound by the California Court of Appeal’s conclusion that Amezcua’s extrajudicial statements to the police were admissible at trial under California’s corpus delicti rule. Therefore, the California Court of Appeal’s rejection of Amezcua’s claim that there was insufficient evidence to uphold his convictions for counts 7, 9 and 10 was not contrary to Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).
AFFIRMED.