Case Name: Raymond VALLEJO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. M.D. MCDONALD, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-07-29
Citations: 667 F. App'x 668
Docket Number: No. 13-55689
Parties: Raymond VALLEJO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. M.D. MCDONALD, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, RAWLINSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 668–669

Head Matter:
Raymond VALLEJO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. M.D. MCDONALD, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 13-55689
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 7, 2016 Pasadena, California
FILED July 29, 2016
Diane E. Berley, Attorney, Diane E. Berley, Attorney at Law, West Hills, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant
Mary Sanchez, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee
Before: FERNANDEZ, RAWLINSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Petitioner-Appellant Raymond Vallejo (Vallejo) appeals the district court's denial of his habeas petition. Following a jury trial, Vallejo was convicted of first degree murder as an aider and abettor. Vallejo asserts that the prosecution presented insufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict.
The California Supreme Court reasonably determined that a rational jury could conclude, based on the facts of the case, that the murder of Eddie Barba was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the preceding gang fight. See People v. Prettyman, 14 Cal.4th 248, 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 827, 926 P.2d 1013, 1020 (1996) ("An aider and abettor is liable not only for the offense he intended to facilitate .,., but also of any reasonably foreseeable offense committed by the person he aids and abets.... "). A petitioner challenging a conviction for insufficient evidence is entitled to habeas relief only if, when viewing the record in a light most favorable to the prosecution, "no rational trier of fact could have found proof beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 324, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
The jury implicitly found that Vallejo should have known that retaliation in the form of a deadly shooting was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the gang fight. As the California Supreme Court noted, the facts of the case support this finding. The jury heard expert witness testimony that the query, "Where are you from?" is a verbal challenge that indicates the speaker is prepared to commit (potentially lethal) violence to elicit "respect," and that the Lil Watts gang is known as a violent street gang whose members often commit gun-related crimes, including homicide. Eyewitness accounts established that the fight was not over after the physical altercation ended, but rather escalated to a deadly shooting within a matter of seconds, supporting a finding of one uninterrupted event. Based on the exclamation at the scene requesting that someone "get the heat," the jury could have reasonably found that at least two of the gang members were aware of the existence of a gun prior to the shooting.
Because the California Supreme Court reasonably concluded that sufficient evidence supported Vallejo's conviction, the state court's ruling did not involve an "unreasonable application of Jackson" and ha-beas relief is unavailable. Creech v. Frauenheim, 800 F.3d 1005, 1012, 1014 (9th Cir. 2015).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.