Carlos Amezcua v. JOE A. LIZARRAGA, Warden; XAVIER BECERRA

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS AMEZCUA,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
JOE A. LIZARRAGA, Warden; XAVIER
BECERRA,
Respondents-Appellees.
No. 19-55910
D.C. No.
3:18-cv-01317-GPC-MSB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Gonzalo P. Curiel, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 14, 2021**
Pasadena, California
Before: M. SMITH and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and STEELE,*** District Judge.
FILED
APR 16 2021
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.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable John E. Steele, United States District Judge for the
Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 2 --

California prisoner Carlos Amezcua appeals the district court’s denial of his
habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
§ 2253(a) and affirm.
Because “a state court’s interpretation of state law, including one announced
on direct appeal of the challenged conviction, binds a federal court sitting in habeas
corpus,” Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74, 76 (2005) (per curiam), we are bound
by the California Court of Appeal’s conclusion that Amezcua’s extrajudicial
statements to the police were admissible at trial under California’s corpus delicti
rule. Therefore, the California Court of Appeal’s rejection of Amezcua’s claim
that there was insufficient evidence to uphold his convictions for counts 7, 9 and
10 was not contrary to Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).
AFFIRMED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --