Joshua v. Pliler

Ninth Circuit

Joshua v. Pliler

167 F. App'x 630

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 16, 2006

DocketNo. 04-17500

StatusPublished

This text of 167 F. App'x 630 (Joshua v. Pliler) 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

Joshua v. Pliler, 167 F. App'x 630 (9th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

California state prisoner Egnacio Dorte Joshua appeals from the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his conviction for two counts of first degree murder with personal use of a firearm. We have jurisdiction [631]*631pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Joshua contends that his right to due process was violated because the jury was not given an instruction on the offense of theft as a lesser included offense to robbery, the predicate felony to his felony murder convictions. Joshua further contends that his constitutional rights were violated because the jury was given an improper instruction on motive. Because the state court’s decision on these issues was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, as determined by the United States Supreme Court, we affirm the district court’s decision denying relief. See Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 376, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit 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 Egnacio Dorte Joshua appeals from the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his conviction for two counts of first degree murder with personal use of a firearm. We have jurisdiction [631]*631pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Joshua contends that his right to due process was violated because the jury was not given an instruction on the offense of theft as a lesser included offense to robbery, the predicate felony to his felony murder convictions. Joshua further contends that his constitutional rights were violated because the jury was given an improper instruction on motive. Because the state court’s decision on these issues was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, as determined by the United States Supreme Court, we affirm the district court’s decision denying relief. See Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 376, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000).

AFFIRMED.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 F. App'x 630, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joshua-v-pliler-ca9-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack