Ricardo Henry v. C. M. HARRISON, Warden

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).
AH/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICARDO HENRY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
C. M. HARRISON, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 07-55684
D.C. No. CV-05-03258-FMC
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Florence-Marie Cooper, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 11, 2010**
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Ricardo Henry appeals from the district court’s
judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
JAN 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

AH/Research 07-55684
Henry contends that his due process right to a fair trial was violated because
there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions for first degree robbery,
first degree burglary, and attempted murder.
The district court properly determined that the California Court of Appeal
did not unreasonably apply Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) in
determining that, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution,
a rational factfinder could have found the essential elements of his convictions
beyond a reasonable doubt. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Juan H. v. Allen,
408 F.3d 1262, 1275 (9th Cir. 2005).
Henry’s motion to expand the certificate of appealability is denied. See 9th
Cir. R. 22-1(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999)
(per curiam).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --