Marquis Juan Johnson v. Stuart J. Ryan

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARQUIS JUAN JOHNSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
STUART J. RYAN,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 08-55516
D.C. No. 8:05-cv-00331-ABC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Audrey B. Collins, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Marquis Juan Johnson appeals from the district
court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Johnson contends that there is insufficient evidence to support the jury’s
FILED
JAN 07 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-55516 2
verdicts convicting him of robbery and false imprisonment. The California court’s
conclusion that there was sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable trier of fact to
find Johnson guilty beyond a reasonable doubt was not contrary to, or an
unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court law, and was not
an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d); see also Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).
Johnson also contends that he was denied due process when the jury was
provided with an instruction which permitted reliance on an uncharged conspiracy
as a basis for the robbery and false imprisonment charges. However, the record
supports that Johnson had adequate notice of the uncharged conspiracy theory to
defend against it. Therefore, the California court’s conclusion that Johnson’s due
process rights were not violated was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application
of, clearly established Supreme Court law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Cole
v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196, 201 (1948); Stephens v. Borg, 59 F.3d 932, 935-36 (9th
Cir. 1995).
We grant Johnson’s motion for judicial notice.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --