From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Grayson v. Mitchell

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nov 13, 2007
257 F. App'x 32 (9th Cir. 2007)

Opinion

No. 06-16035.

Submitted October 16, 2007.

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

Filed November 13, 2007.

April Lynne Grayson, Chowchilla, CA, pro se.

Krista Joy Hart, Sacramento, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Justain P. Riley, Peter H. Smith, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California; Lawrence K. Karlton, Senior Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-01-02218-LKK/JFM.

Before: WALLACE, KLEINFELD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

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

Petitioner April Grayson appeals the denial of her petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Sufficient evidence supports Grayson's conviction for bringing explosives into the jail, as we are bound by the California Court of Appeal's conclusion that bullets are explosives. See Bradshaw v. Rickey, 546 U.S. 74, 76, 126 S.Ct. 602, 163 L.Ed.2d 407 (2005).

Sufficient evidence supports Grayson's conviction for procuring the victim for purposes of prostitution. Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, Officer William's testimony is sufficient to support the conviction. See United States v. Shea, 493 F.3d 1110, 1114 (9th Cir. 2007). Grayson's acquittal on the kidnapping charge did not undermine the procuring conviction. See United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 67, 105 S.Ct. 471, 83 L.Ed.2d 461 (1984).

No clearly established Supreme Court precedent requires the giving of a more specific unanimity instruction than that provided by the trial court. See Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624, 645, 111 S.Ct. 2491, 115 L.Ed.2d 555 (1991).

Finally, the California Court of Appeal's determination that Grayson failed to request a Marsden hearing was not an unreasonable determination of the facts. Additionally, the California Court of Appeal's determination that no hearing was required under California law binds us. See Bradshaw, 546 U.S. at 76, 126 S.Ct. 602.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Grayson v. Mitchell

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nov 13, 2007
257 F. App'x 32 (9th Cir. 2007)
Case details for

Grayson v. Mitchell

Case Details

Full title:April Lynne GRAYSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gwendolyn MITCHELL, Warden…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Nov 13, 2007

Citations

257 F. App'x 32 (9th Cir. 2007)

Citing Cases

Grayson v. Mitchell

April Lynne GRAYSON, petitioner, v. Gwendolyn MITCHELL, Warden.Case below, 257 Fed.Appx. 32. Petition for…