From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

German v. Horel

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Jun 18, 2012
473 F. App'x 810 (9th Cir. 2012)

Opinion

No. 10-55130 D.C. No. 2:08-cv-04543-AHM-RZ

06-18-2012

ELISEO GERMAN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ROBERT A. HOREL, Warden, Respondent - Appellee.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION


MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

A. Howard Matz, District Judge, Presiding


Pasadena, California

Before: TROTT and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and DUFFY, District Judge.

The Honorable Kevin Thomas Duffy, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
--------

A jury convicted Eliseo German of assault with force likely to result in great bodily injury and found that he committed the assault for the benefit of a criminal street gang in violation of California Penal Code section 186.22(b)(1). See People v. Mesa, No. S185688, ___ P.3d ___, slip op. at 8 (Cal. June 4, 2012). On appeal, the California Court of Appeal affirmed.

Through a habeas petition, German now challenges the gang enhancement as not supported by substantial evidence. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979).

"Jackson claims face a high bar in federal habeas proceedings because they are subject to two layers of judicial deference." Coleman v. Johnson, No. 11-1053, 566 U.S. ___, slip op. at 1 (May 29, 2012) (per curiam); see also Parker v. Matthews, No. 11-845, 567 U.S. ___, slip op. at 7 (June 11, 2012) (per curiam) (applying this "twice-deferential standard" and holding that a state supreme court's rejection of a Jackson claim was "controlling in this federal habeas proceeding"). On habeas review, we "may not overturn a state court decision rejecting a sufficiency of the evidence challenge simply because [we] disagree[] with the state court"; rather, we may do so only if the state court decision was "objectively unreasonable." Coleman, slip op. at 1-2 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Here, the testimony of a gang expert regarding, among other things, how a gang might benefit from committing attacks on others was sufficient to support the gang enhancement.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

German v. Horel

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Jun 18, 2012
473 F. App'x 810 (9th Cir. 2012)
Case details for

German v. Horel

Case Details

Full title:ELISEO GERMAN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ROBERT A. HOREL, Warden…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jun 18, 2012

Citations

473 F. App'x 810 (9th Cir. 2012)