Brian Alford v. DWIGHT NEVEN, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF NEVADA

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRIAN ALFORD,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
DWIGHT NEVEN, Warden; ATTORNEY
GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF
NEVADA,
Respondents-Appellees.
No. 17-16358
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-00333-APG-NJK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 13, 2019
San Francisco, California
Before: McKEOWN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
On December 30, 2007, Brian Alford engaged in a fight with Jerome Castro at
Castro’s trailer home in Reno, Nevada. During the fight, Alford beat Castro with his
gun, and a single shot was fired. The bullet grazed Castro’s head, causing a fatal
FILED
FEB 27 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

-- 1 of 3 --

head injury. Nevada charged Alford with first-degree murder and advanced both
premeditated- and felony-murder theories at trial. The jury, in a general verdict,
convicted Alford of first-degree murder. The Nevada Supreme Court held that
sufficient evidence supported Alford’s conviction. On federal habeas corpus, the
district court agreed. We granted a Certificate of Appealability on the issue of
whether the evidence at trial was sufficient to support Alford’s first-degree murder
conviction based on a felony-murder theory.
A conviction is supported by insufficient evidence when no “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). A court applying Jackson
must resolve any conflicting testimony in favor of the prosecution. Id. at 326.
Under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which governs this case,
a federal court may overturn a state court decision rejecting a sufficiency of the
evidence challenge “only if the state court decision was ‘objectively unreasonable.’”
Coleman v. Johnson, 566 U.S. 650, 651 (per curiam) (quoting Cavazos v. Smith, 565
U.S. 1, 4 (2011) (per curiam)).
The testimony at Alford’s trial, taken in the light most favorable to the
prosecution, revealed that after being closed out of Castro’s house, Brian Alford spit
on Castro and then “pushed in the door and started fighting with [Castro].” On the
2

-- 2 of 3 --

basis of this evidence, a rational jury could conclude that Alford committed burglary
under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 205.060, the felony underlying the state’s felony-murder
theory, by entering Castro’s home with the intent to commit battery. The Nevada
Supreme Court’s decision that sufficient evidence supported Alford’s conviction for
first-degree murder was not objectively unreasonable.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --