Robert Smith v. George Neotti

561 F. App'x 624
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMarch 11, 2014
Docket12-56732
StatusUnpublished

This text of 561 F. App'x 624 (Robert Smith v. George Neotti) 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
Robert Smith v. George Neotti, 561 F. App'x 624 (9th Cir. 2014).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Respondent George Neotti appeals the district court’s order granting a writ of habeas corpus to Petitioner Robert Smith. Reviewing de novo, Lujan v. Garcia, 734 F.3d 917, 923 (9th Cir.2013), we reverse.

The district court erred in holding that insufficient evidence supported Petitioner’s conviction under California Health and Safety Code section 11350(a) for possessing black-tar heroin. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational juror could have found the elements, including the element that Petitioner possessed a “usable quantity” of heroin, beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Deputy Sheriff Wayne Byerley testified that, in his opinion, which rested on his training and experience, the heroin that he had found in Petitioner’s possession was a usable quantity. Regardless of the total weight of the heroin and regardless of the testimony of the scientist, the jury could have credited Deputy Byerley’s testimony on usable quantity. See United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158, 1170 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc) (“We cannot second-guess the jury’s credibility assessments; rather, ‘under Jackson, the assessment of the credibility of witnesses is generally beyond the scope of review.’ ” (quoting Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 330, 115 S.Ct. 851, 130 L.Ed.2d 808 (1995))).

REVERSED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

Related

United States v. Nevils
598 F.3d 1158 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Jackson v. Virginia
443 U.S. 307 (Supreme Court, 1979)
Schlup v. Delo
513 U.S. 298 (Supreme Court, 1995)
Reuben Lujan v. Silvia Garcia
734 F.3d 917 (Ninth Circuit, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
561 F. App'x 624, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-smith-v-george-neotti-ca9-2014.