DARRELL JAMES TITTLE, Jr. v. JAMES E. TILTON, Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

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).
The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, District Judge for the Northern***
District of Iowa, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DARRELL JAMES TITTLE, Jr.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JAMES E. TILTON, Secretary of the
Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 08-56492
D.C. No. 3:07-cv-00641-DMS-
NLS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 11, 2010**
Pasadena, California
Before: GOODWIN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and BENNETT, District
Judge.***
FILED
JUN 15 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Darrell James Tittle, Jr., appeals the denial of his petition for writ of habeas
corpus. For his participation in a gang altercation that resulted in a shooting death,
a jury in California convicted Tittle of voluntary manslaughter. Tittle, who did not
shoot the victim but was convicted under a theory of aiding and abetting, contends
that there is insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction. Because Tittle’s
petition is subject to the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996,
claims that a state court has denied on the merits may not result in federal habeas
relief unless the state court’s ruling (1) was “contrary to, or involved an
unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the
Supreme Court of the United States,” or (2) was “based on an unreasonable
determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court
proceedings.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). We affirm.
The evidence is sufficient to sustain Tittle’s conviction. In reviewing claims
of insufficient evidence, “the relevant question is whether, after viewing 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). Here, the jury heard evidence that
Tittle and other gang members traveled to Mission Bay Park dressed in full gang
colors with knowledge that they would likely meet their rival gang [ER 8, 18], that

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Tittle instigated the altercation by throwing a soda can at a rival gang member [ER
4, 19, 1004-05], that the two gangs had a violent history [ER 8, 1156], and that
some members of each gang were usually armed when they confronted each other
[ER 19, 1158]. From that evidence, a rational trier of fact could have found Tittle
guilty under a theory of aiding and abetting either because he intended the shooting
to occur and is therefore liable as a principal, or because he intended to commit
breach of the peace, assault, or battery and the shooting was a natural and probable
consequence of those offenses. See People v. Mendoza, 77 Cal. Rptr. 2d 428, 432-
33 (Cal. 1998). The California Court of Appeal’s decision upholding Tittle’s
conviction therefore was neither contrary to nor involved an unreasonable
application of clearly established federal law.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --