Arlene Dugmore v. MARY LATTIMORE, Warden

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARLENE DUGMORE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
MARY LATTIMORE, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 09-55206
D.C. No. 2:06-cv-05930-AG-RCF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 8, 2011
Pasadena, California
Before: PREGERSON, WARDLAW, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Arlene Dugmore appeals the district court’s denial of her petition for a writ
of habeas corpus, in which she claimed there was insufficient evidence to support
her state court convictions for first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit
murder. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm. The
FILED
FEB 16 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
parties are familiar with the facts of the case, so we repeat them here only to the
extent necessary to explain our decision.
Dugmore’s habeas petition, filed on September 18, 2006, is governed by 28
U.S.C. § 2254(d), as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty
Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). When a state court adjudicates a claim on the merits,
AEDPA bars federal habeas corpus relief on that claim unless the last reasoned
state-court adjudication was either (1) “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable
application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme
Court of the United States,” or (2) “based on an unreasonable determination of the
facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. §
2254(d).
Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if, viewing all “the evidence in
the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have
found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v.
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). In making this sufficiency determination, a
state court of appeal “must respect the province of the jury to determine the
credibility of witnesses, resolve evidentiary conflicts, and draw reasonable
inferences from proven facts by assuming that the jury resolved all conflicts in a
manner that supports the verdict.” Walters v. Maass, 45 F.3d 1355, 1358 (9th Cir.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
1995). Direct evidence of guilt is not required; “circumstantial evidence can form
a sufficient basis for conviction.” United States v. Yoshida, 303 F.3d 1145, 1151
(9th Cir. 2002).
Here, the California Court of Appeal reasonably found, viewing all the
evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, there was sufficient
evidence for a rational trier of fact to find the essential elements of the charged
crimes of murder and conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution
presented circumstantial evidence that Dugmore: (1) had a financial motive to kill
her husband because she was the beneficiary on his recently increased life
insurance policies; (2) paid the man who facilitated the murder (“Arias”) an
undisclosed amount of money three weeks before the murder; (3) was further in
debt to Arias after the killing although there was no evidence of any basis for her
debt other than the murder-for-hire arrangement; (4) made several extrajudicial
statements evincing a consciousness of guilt; (5) wrote “March, big money” on a
note dated 7 months before the murder, coincidentally the month she ultimately
received $500,000 in life insurance proceeds; (6) opposed an America’s Most
Wanted investigation into her husband’s murder; and (7) assisted Arias when he
called her from jail asking for money seven years after her husband’s murder.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --