AMEZCUA v. LIZARRAGA (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Carlos AMEZCUA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joe A. LIZARRAGA, Warden; Xavier Becerra, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 19-55910

Decided: April 16, 2021

Before: M. SMITH and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and STEELE,** District Judge.

Charles Roger Khoury, Jr., Esquire, Attorney, Del Mar, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant Mary Katherine Strickland, Esquire, Attorney, AGCA - Office of the Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondent-Appellee

MEMORANDUM ***

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, 126 S.Ct. 602, 163 L.Ed.2d 407 (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, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).

AFFIRMED.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law