Victor Crawford v. Michael Evan, No. 09-16923 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 22 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VICTOR RAY CRAWFORD, Petitioner - Appellant, No. 09-16923 D.C. No. 4:08-cv-02694-PJH v. MEMORANDUM * MICHAEL S. EVANS, Warden, Salinas Valley State Prison, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 4, 2010 ** San Francisco, California Before: HUG, RYMER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Victor Crawford appeals the district court s denial of his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 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 concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). The California Court of Appeal s determination that sufficient evidence supported Crawford s conviction for kidnapping to commit robbery was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, Supreme Court precedent. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The appellate court reasonably concluded that any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979), because: (1) Crawford s first expression after kidnapping the victim was to question whether the victim had any money; and (2) Crawford forcibly moved the victim to a secluded area several blocks from the bus stop before questioning him, which a jury could reasonably conclude was done to prevent others from discovering Crawford s robbery attempt. To the extent Crawford argues that he did not use the force necessary to constitute a robbery, the state court reasonably rejected this as well, for the requisite "force or fear" could be inferred from the victim s testimony. AFFIRMED.

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.