Opinion ID: 597201
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Appellate Court's Presumption Regarding Intent

Text: 34 Payne further argues that the judgment of the California courts should be reversed because the state appellate court used a constitutionally invalid presumption in deciding his appeal. In rejecting Payne's Beeman argument, the California Court of Appeal stated: we presume that the trial court knew the weight of authority upon which the Beeman holding was based and followed it. Payne argues that this conclusive presumption was unsupported in fact or law, denying him due process. 35 Payne mischaracterizes the court of appeal's statement. The court did not presume that the trial judge knew and followed Beeman, which was decided after Payne's conviction, but rather that the judge knew the weight of authority upon which the Beeman holding was based. Payne also takes the statement out of context, ignoring the court's previous conclusion that the trial court's finding 36 was the unambiguous equivalent of a finding that [Payne] intended to aid in the killing, as required by Carlos, and also by the subsequent decision in [Beeman ], defining the elements of aiding and abetting. In other words, the court found not only that [Payne] intentionally aided in the burglary, but also that when he restrained Mr. Hynan, he did so with the intent of aiding Williams in the killing of the victim. 37 [A] federal court on habeas review must give deference to a state appellate court's resolution of an ambiguity in a state trial court statement. Parker v. Dugger, 498 U.S. 308, 111 S.Ct. 731, 739, 112 L.Ed.2d 812, 825 (1991); accord Wainwright v. Goode, 464 U.S. 78, 83-85, 104 S.Ct. 378, 381-82, 78 L.Ed.2d 187 (1983). In context, the California Court of Appeal's presumption is no more than the unremarkable statement that the trial judge was presumed to have known the relevant law of California when he made his decision.CONCLUSION 38 Sufficient evidence supported the state trial court's conclusion that Payne intended to help Williams kill Kathline Hynan, and restrained Michael Hynan in order to accomplish that objective. The trial court made a sufficient finding of specific intent as required by the California Supreme Court in People v. Beeman, 674 P.2d 1318, 1325 (Cal.1984). 39 The district court judgment is AFFIRMED with regard to Payne's appeal, and REVERSED with regard to the State's appeal, and the matter is remanded for an order denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 40