Anderson-Bey v. Zavaras, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9479

In 1988, Anderson-Bey robbed two sandwich-shop employees at gunpoint in Aurora, Colorado, taking $234 from a cash register.
He was charged by information in 1988 with two counts of robbery, one theft, and habitual-offender allegations based on prior felonies (1983 trespass and 1985 robbery).
A jury convicted him on both robberies and the theft; habitual-offender status produced 25-year sentences for each robbery, with the theft concurrent at six months.
Colorado appellate proceedings began with a 1992 remand to address a 1983 conviction challenge; an evidentiary hearing found the 1983 plea valid and constitutional.
Anderson-Bey pursued postconviction relief in 1997 and 1999, challenging sufficiency of Martin’s possession/control of the taken money; the courts upheld the conviction.
A 2007 § 2254 habeas petition raised three claims, which the district court denied; the court of appeals granted a COA and addressed two issues on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to convict for robbery	Anderson-Bey—insufficient proof Martin had control of the money.	Zavaras—Colorado view of 'presence' and 'control' supports conviction.	Challenge is a state-law interpretation issue barred from review; insufficient-evidence claim rejected.
Validity of the 1983 conviction used for enhancement	Anderson-Bey argues Lackawanna County doctrine allows review of the enhanced sentence based on the 1983 conviction.	Zavaras argues Lackawanna forecloses review; retroactivity applies Lackawanna to § 2254 petition.	Lackawanna applies retroactively; the 1983 conviction cannot be revisited via § 2254, so relief denied.

People v. Borghesi, 66 P.3d 93 (Colo. 2003) (defines elements of Colorado robbery and presence/control concept)
People v. Bartowsheski, 661 P.2d 235 (Colo. 1983) (presence in robbery context; control and proximity definitions)
People v. Anderson-Bey, 98CA0646 (Colo. App. 1999) (unpublished; discusses Martin's control over property)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1979) (manufactures standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1991) (limits federal review of state-law interpretations under Estelle)
Lackawanna County Dist. Att'y v. Coss, 532 U.S. 394 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2001) (limits § 2254 review of prior convictions used for enhancements)
Harper v. Va. Dep't of Taxation, 509 U.S. 86 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1993) (retroactivity in applying new rules to pending cases)
Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1987) (retroactivity framework for new rules)
Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc., 511 U.S. 298 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1994) (retroactivity principles in judicial decisions)
Curtis v. Montgomery, 552 F.3d 578 (7th Cir. 2009) (illustrates state-law interpretation vs. Jackson challenge in habeas)
Sanford v. Yukins, 288 F.3d 855 (6th Cir. 2002) (state-law interpretation issues in sufficiency challenges)
Bates v. McCaughtry, 934 F.2d 99 (7th Cir. 1991) (reframes state-law element interpretations in habeas context)