FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VICTOR RAY CRAWFORD, No. 09-16923
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:08-cv-02694-PJH
v.
MEMORANDUM *
MICHAEL S. EVANS, Warden, Salinas
Valley State Prison,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 4, 2010 **
San Francisco, California
Before: HUG, RYMER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Victor Crawford appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus
petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We affirm.
*
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 California Court of Appeal’s determination that sufficient evidence
supported Crawford’s conviction for kidnapping to commit robbery was neither
contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, Supreme Court precedent. See 28
U.S.C. § 2254(d). The appellate court reasonably concluded that “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), because: (1) Crawford’s
first expression after kidnapping the victim was to question whether the victim had
any money; and (2) Crawford forcibly moved the victim to a secluded area several
blocks from the bus stop before questioning him, which a jury could reasonably
conclude was done to prevent others from discovering Crawford’s robbery attempt.
To the extent Crawford argues that he did not use the force necessary to constitute
a robbery, the state court reasonably rejected this as well, for the requisite "force or
fear" could be inferred from the victim’s testimony.
AFFIRMED.