Legal Opinion
Robertson v. Runnals
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided February 2, 2009No. 08-15173Published
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM *
Robertson argues that his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial was violated in that the jury did not decide whether he acted with malice. Robertson’s appeal questions the elements of second degree felony murder. Under California law, malice is not an element of second degree felony murder. People v. Robertson, 34 Cal.4th 156, 165, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 604, 95 P.3d 872 (2004). A petitioner may not “transform a state-law issue into a federal one merely by asserting a violation of due process.” Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir.1996). The appeal raises solely a state law issue.
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Rogers v. TennesseeSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Terry Allen Langford v. Rick Day, Acting Administrator of Corrections Division Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General of the State of MontanaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1997
- People v. HansenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
- People v. RobertsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
- William Clark v. Jill Brown, Warden, California State Prison at San QuentinCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2006