Case ID: f-appx_84/html/0427-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Derrick HOPSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Burl CAIN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 02-31024.
    Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 30, 2003.
    Derrick Hopson, pro se, Louisiana Department of Safety & Corrections, Angola, LA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Louis Gerard Authement, District Attorney’s Office, Hahnville, LA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before REAVLEY, JONES and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Derrick Hopson, Louisiana prisoner # 315293, was convicted after a jury trial of second degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. The district court denied his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. A certificate of appealability was granted on the issue of whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction.

Hopson contends that there was insufficient evidence to identify him as having been at the scene of the crime or to establish that he had the requisite specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm. See La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 30:1. The state appellate court rejected these arguments.

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, we may not grant habeas relief unless the state court’s decision was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, as we must, see Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), we hold that the State court’s determination was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. See Foster v. Johnson, 293 F.3d 766, 776 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1054, 123 S.Ct. 625, 154 L.Ed.2d 532 (2002); Foy v. Donnelly, 959 F.2d 1307,1316 (5th Cir.1992).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.