Mark Sandoval v. C. Pliler, et al, No. 08-56630 (9th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 21 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 08-56630 MARK SANDOVAL, D.C. No. 8:04-CV-00360-FMC-AJW Petitioner - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM * C. K. PLILER, Warden, et al., Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Florence-Marie Cooper, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 14, 2010 ** Before: SKOPIL, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges. 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. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 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 (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 selfdefense 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. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
