Eric David Hoffert v. CHARLES L. RYAN and STATE OF ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL

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. Appellant. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ERIC DAVID HOFFERT,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CHARLES L. RYAN and STATE OF
ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 09-17536
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-01268-JWS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
John W. Sedwick, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Eric David Hoffert appeals pro se 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.
FILED
JAN 27 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-17536 2
Hoffert contends that his due process rights were violated because he was
convicted for conduct not prohibited by Arizona law. Specifically, he contends
that Arizona Revised Statute § 13-1304(A) requires the state to prove that Hoffert
possessed the intent to commit a sexual offense at the time that he initially
restrained the victim or, at the latest, prior to his departure from the state. There is
no convincing evidence that the Arizona Supreme Court would have rejected the
Court of Appeals’ interpretation. See In re Watts, 298 F.3d 1077, 1082 (9th Cir.
2002). Accordingly, the state court’s decision was not contrary to, or an
unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d)(1); Fiore v. White, 531 U.S. 225, 228-29 (2001) (per curiam) (due
process clause forbids a state to convict a person of a crime without proving the
elements of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --