Case ID: f-appx_53/html/0419-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Shaw Ronald WENSEL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Thomas MADDOCK, et al., Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 01-16768.
    D.C. No. CV-98-00087-LKK.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 2, 2002.
    
    Decided Dec. 9, 2002.
    Before GOODWIN, TROTT, and GRABER, 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 Shaw Ronald Wensel appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support his 1995 conviction for attempted first degree murder, in violation of California Penal Code §§ 664 and 187. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo the district court’s decision to grant or deny a § 2254 petition, see Turner v. Calderon, 281 F.3d 851, 864 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.

Wensel contends there was insufficient evidence of premeditation to support his conviction for attempted first degree murder. Under California law, first degree murder is a willful, deliberate, premeditated, and unlawful killing. Cal. Pen.Code § 187(a). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we conclude that a reasonable juror could have found premeditation to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Wensel’s § 2254 petition.

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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.