Case ID: f-appx_167/html/0630-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Egnacio Dorte JOSHUA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Cheryl K. PLILER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 04-17500.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.
    
    Decided Feb. 16, 2006.
    Donald S. Frick, Esq., Sacramento, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Charles Austin French, Office of the California Attorney General, Department of Justice, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Egnacio Dorte Joshua appeals from the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his conviction for two counts of first degree murder with personal use of a firearm. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Joshua contends that his right to due process was violated because the jury was not given an instruction on the offense of theft as a lesser included offense to robbery, the predicate felony to his felony murder convictions. Joshua further contends that his constitutional rights were violated because the jury was given an improper instruction on motive. Because the state court’s decision on these issues was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, as determined by the United States Supreme Court, we affirm the district court’s decision denying relief. See Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 376, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.