TROMBLEY, THOMAS F., MTR. OF

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that California’s Dixon and timeliness 64 CLARK V. CHAPPELL procedural bars are adequate and independent state law grounds to bar federal habeas review
• recognizing that California’s Dixon bar is an adequate and independent state 13 law ground to bar federal habeas review
• noting 26 that federal habeas courts first look to state law for the elements of the offense “and then 27 turn to the federal question of whether the (state) court was objectively reasonable in 28 concluding that sufficient evidence supported” the conviction
• “In addition to Jackson‘s already 27 deferential standard, a second level of deference applies under AEDPA.”
• “In addition to Jackson’s already deferential standard …. we must conclude that the state court’s determination that a rational jury could have found each required element proven beyond a reasonable doubt was not just wrong but was objectively unreasonable.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).