Graham v. Lewis

Full title: Chandler Emile GRAHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gail LEWIS, Warden; et…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jun 21, 2001

13 F. App'x 526 (9th Cir. 2001)

Opinion

13 Fed.Appx. 526 (9th Cir. 2001) Chandler Emile GRAHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gail LEWIS, Warden; et al., Respondents-Appellees. No. 99-55128. D.C. No. CV-98-00463-AHS. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. June 21, 2001

Submitted June 11, 2001. ^*

* The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

After petitioner was convicted of second-degree murder in state court, he filed petition for habeas corpus relief. The United States District Court for the Central District of California, Alicemarie H. Stotler, J., denied relief. Petitioner appealed. The Court of Appeals held that federal court could not substitute its interpretation of felony-murder merger rule for state court's interpretation.

Affirmed.

Page 527.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Alicemarie H. Stotler, District Judge, Presiding.

Before O'SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ^**

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

California state prisoner Chandler Emile Graham appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his second-degree murder conviction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a). We review de novo the district court's denial of a section 2254 petition, see McNab v. Kok, 170 F.3d 1246, 1247 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam), and we affirm.

The California Court of Appeal concluded in Graham's direct appeal that, as a matter of state law, the felony-murder "merger" rule set forth in People v. Ireland, 70 Cal.2d 522, 540, 75 Cal.Rptr. 188, 450 P.2d 580 (1969), did not apply in Graham's case, and we cannot substitute our interpretation of Ireland for that of the state court. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 68, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991) ("[I]t is not the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine state-court determinations on state-law questions."). Because Graham has not shown that the state court's decision was either arbitrary or discriminatory, he has not alleged a federal constitutional violation supporting habeas corpus review. See Kennick v. Superior Court, 736 F.2d 1277, 1280 (9th Cir.1984) ("Absent arbitrary or discriminatory action ... a mistake of state law does not constitute a due process violation...."). The district court, therefore, properly denied Graham's habeas petition.

AFFIRMED.