Case Name: Mark SANDOVAL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. C.K. PLILER, Warden, et al., Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-01-21
Citations: 411 F. App'x 89
Docket Number: No. 08-56630
Parties: Mark SANDOVAL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. C.K. PLILER, Warden, et al., Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SKOPIL, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 411
Pages: 89–91

Head Matter:
Mark SANDOVAL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. C.K. PLILER, Warden, et al., Respondents-Appellees.
No. 08-56630.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 14, 2010.
Decided Jan. 21, 2011.
David Harold Goodwin, Esquire, David Goodwin, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Garrett Beaumont, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for RespondentsAppellees.
Before: SKOPIL, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Mark Sandoval appeals from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Sandoval contends his constitutional right to present a defense was violated when the state trial court refused to instruct the jury on imperfect self-defense. As an initial matter, we reject the State's contention that Sandoval failed to exhaust this claim as it was fairly presented in his petition for review filed in the California Supreme Court. See Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 32, 124 S.Ct. 1347, 158 L.Ed.2d 64 (2004) (noting petitioner may raise a federal issue by citing to applicable federal law).
On the merits, we deny relief because Sandoval fails to demonstrate the state court's decision was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the United States Supreme Court, or an unreasonable determination of the facts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), (2). There was not sufficient evidence from which a jury could reasonably have concluded that Sandoval had an actual but unreasonable belief that his life was in imminent danger. See Menendez v. Terhune, 422 F.3d 1012, 1028-30 (9th Cir.2005) (no constitutional violation when state trial court refused to instruct on imperfect self-defense that was not supported by sufficient evidence); Solis v. Garcia, 219 F.3d 922, 929 (9th Cir.2000) (per curiam) (no constitutional error in refusing to give an instruction not supported by evidence).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.