Opinion ID: 11149
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Harris argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his robbery conviction. More specifically, he argues that even if the State proved at trial that he was in possession of stolen property or trying to pass forged checks, the evidence did not support his robbery conviction. The standard for testing the sufficiency of the evidence in a federal habeas review of a state-court conviction is whether, `after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the not have authority to rule on motion for a COA); Houchin v. Zavaras, 924 F.Supp. 115 (D.Colo. 1996) (holding that Rule 22(b) authorized it to issue a COA). Obviously, neither of these two cases involved a situation where, as here, a CPC had been granted by the district court prior to the effective date of the Act. 3 The amended version of Rule 22(b) provides that [i]f no express request for a certificate is filed, the notice of appeal shall be deemed to constitute a request addressed to the judges of the court of appeals. Thus, if the CPC signed by the district court became ineffective after the Act was enacted, we would treat Harris' notice of appeal as a request for a COA. 4 essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ Guzman v. Lensing, 934 F.2d 80, 82 (5th Cir. 1991) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). Under Mississippi law, a person commits robbery if he feloniously take[s] the personal property of another, in his presence or from his person and against his will, by violence to his person or by putting such person in fear of some immediate injury to his person. Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-73. Harris does not dispute that the victim was robbed; instead, he argues that there is insufficient evidence to prove that he committed the robbery. The victim had poor eyesight and was unable to visually identify Harris. She testified that she did not look at his face during the robbery. She did testify that the perpetrator was approximately six feet tall, heavy, about 200 pounds, and with afro hair style. The victim also positively identified Harris' voice as that of the perpetrator. Three employees from two different stores testified that Harris attempted to cash the victim's checks. The police seized the following items from Harris' residence: gloves that matched the description given by the victim; the stolen flashlight that contained batteries that bore the fingerprints of the victim's son; and clothes identical to the ones worn by the man who attempted to cash the victim's checks. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of robbery under Mississippi law beyond a 5 reasonable doubt. See Guzman, 934 F.2d at 82. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying habeas relief on this ground.