Freddie Freeman, Plaintiff-Petitioner v. W. T. Stone, Superintendent, Defendant-Respondent

Ninth Circuit

Freddie Freeman, Plaintiff-Petitioner v. W. T. Stone, Superintendent, Defendant-Respondent

444 F.2d 113, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 9622

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided June 14, 1971·No. 26536·Published·Cited by 17 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, convicted in state court of armed robbery, appeals from the denial by the district court, of his application for federal habeas relief. His sole contention on appeal is that the evidence introduced at his trial was legally insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm.

*114 While it is true, as the State points out, that allegations of insufficient evidence in a state court trial are not reviewable by writ of habeas corpus, Fernandez v. Klinger (9 Cir. 1965) 346 F.2d 210, 211, cert. den. 382 U.S. 895, 86 S.Ct. 191, 15 L.Ed.2d 152, we must examine the record to determine if “the charges against petitioner were so totally devoid of evidentiary support as to render his conviction unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Thompson v. City of Louisville, 362 U.S. 199, 80 S.Ct. 624, 4 L.Ed.2d 654 (1960). See Garner v. Louisiana, 368 U.S. 157, 163, 82 S.Ct. 248, 7 L.Ed.2d 207 (1961); Barquera v. California (9 Cir. 1967) 374 F.2d 177, 179-180.

We have examined the record and conclude that there was ample evidence supporting the charge that petitioner participated in the robbery by driving the get-away car. While the evidence was entirely circumstantial, we cannot say that there was no evidence pointing to petitioner’s involvement or that the jury acted unreasonably in drawing that conclusion.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, convicted in state court of armed robbery, appeals from the denial by the district court, of his application for federal habeas relief. His sole contention on appeal is that the evidence introduced at his trial was legally insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm.

*114 While it is true, as the State points out, that allegations of insufficient evidence in a state court trial are not reviewable by writ of habeas corpus, Fernandez v. Klinger (9 Cir. 1965) 346 F.2d 210, 211, cert. den. 382 U.S. 895, 86 S.Ct. 191, 15 L.Ed.2d 152, we must examine the record to determine if “the charges against petitioner were so totally devoid of evidentiary support as to render his conviction unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Thompson v. City of Louisville, 362 U.S. 199, 80 S.Ct. 624, 4 L.Ed.2d 654 (1960). See Garner v. Louisiana, 368 U.S. 157, 163, 82 S.Ct. 248, 7 L.Ed.2d 207 (1961); Barquera v. California (9 Cir. 1967) 374 F.2d 177, 179-180.

We have examined the record and conclude that there was ample evidence supporting the charge that petitioner participated in the robbery by driving the get-away car. While the evidence was entirely circumstantial, we cannot say that there was no evidence pointing to petitioner’s involvement or that the jury acted unreasonably in drawing that conclusion.

Affirmed.

Freddie Freeman, Plaintiff-Petitioner v. W. T. Stone, Superintendent, Defendant-Respondent, 444 F.2d 113, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 9622 (9th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

444 F.2d 113 (Freddie Freeman, Plaintiff-Petitioner v. W. T. Stone, Superintendent, Defendant-Respondent) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related