Opinion
This 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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)
Following affirmance of his state convictions of, inter alia, murder and robbery, state prisoner sought habeas corpus review. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Susan Yvonne Illston, J., 2002 WL 1766588, denied the writ, and petitioner appealed. The Court of Appeals held that state appellate court's finding that evidence was sufficient to sustain robbery conviction was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law.
Affirmed.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; Susan Yvonne Illston, District Judge, Presiding.
Arthur Pirelli, Attorney at Law, San Francisco, CA, Anthony Steadham, Represa, CA, for Petitioner.
Juliet B. Haley, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, D.W. NELSON, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Anthony Steadham appeals the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). We affirm.
The California Court of Appeal decision affirming Steadham's conviction for the Hayashi robbery was not contrary to, or an objectively unreasonable application of,
Page 990.
clearly established federal law. See Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 1172, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003) (emphasizing standard under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)). That court's conclusion was consistent with In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970), and Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 324, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). It was not unreasonable given Hayashi's testimony that Steadham resembled the attacker but looked more grown up and heavier--a view of Steadham expressed by witnesses to other robberies as well--and evidence that the Hayashi robbery occurred in the same time frame and geographic area as other taxi robberies with which Steadham was connected, that Hayashi picked up his fare right by Steadham's house, that Hayashi's cab was recovered very close to where Steadham lived, and that the fare used the name "Anthony"--Steadham's first name. Even though Hayashi's identification may have been weak, a rational trier of fact could have found that Steadham was the robber beyond a reasonable doubt.
We decline to grant Steadham's request to expand the certificate of appealability.
AFFIRMED.