Brookey West v. Sheryl Foster , 454 F. App'x 630 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              OCT 24 2011
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    BROOKEY LEE WEST,                                No. 10-17244
    Petitioner -Appellant,
    D. C. No. 2:07-cv-00021-KJD-
    v.                                             GWF
    SHERYL FOSTER; et al.,
    MEMORANDUM *
    Respondents - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Nevada
    Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted October 12, 2011
    San Francisco, California
    Before: THOMAS and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and ALBRITTON, Senior
    District Judge.**
    Brookey Lee West (“West”) appeals the district court’s denial of her 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The Honorable William H. Albritton, III, Senior District Judge for the
    U.S. District Court for Middle Alabama, sitting by designation.
    West argues that the Nevada Supreme Court violated the Antiterrorism and
    Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) by acting contrary to clearly established
    federal law as determined by the Supreme Court when it determined that the State
    produced sufficient evidence to establish that the victim died by the criminal
    agency of another (the “corpus delicti” element). See 
    28 U.S.C. § 2244
    (d).
    Moreover, West seeks to expand the scope of the Certificate of Appealability
    granted by the district court. Because the history and facts of the case are familiar
    to the parties, we need not recount them here.
    This court reviews the denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
    pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     de novo. Dows v. Wood, 
    211 F.3d 480
    , 484 (9th Cir.
    2000).
    The standard of review by federal courts of state court decisions governed
    by AEDPA is a “highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings,
    which demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt."
    Woodford v. Visciotti, 
    537 U.S. 19
    , 24 (2002) (per curiam) (citation and internal
    quotation marks omitted). As per the AEDPA, the Nevada Supreme Court’s
    decision must have been an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent
    to warrant a writ of habeas corpus. See Sims v. Rowland, 
    414 F.3d 1148
    , 1151 (9th
    Cir. 2005).
    2
    We affirm the district court’s denial of West’s petition for habeas corpus.
    In Jackson v. Virginia, the Supreme Court provided the standard for determining
    the sufficiency of the evidence at a criminal trial. 
    443 U.S. 307
     (1979). The Court
    explained that “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.” 
    Id.
     at 319 (citing
    Johnson v. Louisiana, 
    406 U.S. 356
    , 362 (1972)).
    West’s primary argument focuses on the indeterminancy of the medical
    evidence. That argument, however, overlooks other circumstantial evidence relied
    on by the Nevada Supreme Court including: the manner in which the victim’s body
    was found, the plastic bag tied over her face, evidence of the unhealthy relationship
    between West and the victim, and evidence indicating that West fabricated a story
    of moving the victim to California even before she disappeared. Viewing the facts
    in this case in the light most favorable to the prosecution, this Court cannot say that
    the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision to uphold West’s conviction was
    unreasonable.
    Because the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision comports with the
    requirements of 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
    (d), West’s petition was appropriately denied.
    3
    As to West’s request to expand the Certificate of Appealability to include
    two other issues, the Court finds that no reasonable jurist could debate the
    correctness of the district court’s ruling on these issues. Accordingly, the Court
    declines to expand the certificate of appealability.
    The district court’s denial of West’s petition for habeas corpus is
    AFFIRMED.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-17244

Citation Numbers: 454 F. App'x 630

Judges: Thomas, Murguia, Albritton

Filed Date: 10/24/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024