Cobbs v. Carey

Ninth Circuit

Cobbs v. Carey

302 F. App'x 661

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 2, 2008

DocketNo. 06-16047

StatusPublished

This text of 302 F. App'x 661 (Cobbs v. Carey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cobbs v. Carey, 302 F. App'x 661 (9th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

California state prisoner Ricky Lee Cobbs, Jr. appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, challenging his conviction and sentence for murder and street terrorism. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.

Cobbs contends that: (1) the trial court erred by denying his request for a “claim of right” jury instruction; (2) there was insufficient evidence that the murder was the natural and probable consequence of his unarmed assault of the victim; (3) the trial court erred by denying his request for a jury instruction stating that the shooting was not a natural and probable consequence of the assault if it was the independent act of one of the participants; (4) the jury instructions improperly permitted the jury to consider whether the crime of murder in the abstract is a natural and probable consequence of the crime of assault in the abstract; (5) the natural and probable consequences doctrine violates due process because it permits conviction based on ordinary negligence; (6) the natural and probable consequences doctrine creates an unconstitutional presumption of the presence of malice; (7) the trial court erred by [662]*662admitting certain expert testimony; (8) the trial court erred by denying his motion to strike his prior juvenile adjudication; and (9) his due process rights were violated by the trial court’s failure to conduct a continuous preliminary hearing.

We conclude that the state court’s decision rejecting these claims was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Lackawanna v. Coss, 582 U.S. 394, 121 S.Ct. 1567, 149 L.Ed.2d 608 (2001); Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993); Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 72, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); Windham v. Merkle, 163 F.3d 1092, 1103 (9th Cir.1998).

AFFIRMED.

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

California state prisoner Ricky Lee Cobbs, Jr. appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, challenging his conviction and sentence for murder and street terrorism. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.

Cobbs contends that: (1) the trial court erred by denying his request for a “claim of right” jury instruction; (2) there was insufficient evidence that the murder was the natural and probable consequence of his unarmed assault of the victim; (3) the trial court erred by denying his request for a jury instruction stating that the shooting was not a natural and probable consequence of the assault if it was the independent act of one of the participants; (4) the jury instructions improperly permitted the jury to consider whether the crime of murder in the abstract is a natural and probable consequence of the crime of assault in the abstract; (5) the natural and probable consequences doctrine violates due process because it permits conviction based on ordinary negligence; (6) the natural and probable consequences doctrine creates an unconstitutional presumption of the presence of malice; (7) the trial court erred by [662]*662admitting certain expert testimony; (8) the trial court erred by denying his motion to strike his prior juvenile adjudication; and (9) his due process rights were violated by the trial court’s failure to conduct a continuous preliminary hearing.

We conclude that the state court’s decision rejecting these claims was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Lackawanna v. Coss, 582 U.S. 394, 121 S.Ct. 1567, 149 L.Ed.2d 608 (2001); Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993); Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 72, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); Windham v. Merkle, 163 F.3d 1092, 1103 (9th Cir.1998).

AFFIRMED.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 F. App'x 661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cobbs-v-carey-ca9-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack