Ryan Black v. Amy Miller, 678 F. App'x 505

Petitioner Ryan J. Black was convicted after a bench trial of participating in a shooting; the state court found he was either a principal or an aider and abettor present in the vehicle from which shots were fired.
Black filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 claiming he received inadequate notice that the prosecution would rely on an aider-and-abettor theory, thus violating his Sixth Amendment and due process rights to prepare a defense.
The preliminary hearing and trial record included testimony and evidence suggesting Black had been seen driving the car and had access to the car; multiple witnesses identified him as having driven or been in the vehicle.
The California law principle that charging a defendant as a principal also charges him as an aider and abettor (Cal. Penal Code § 971; People v. Quiroz) was central to the court’s notice analysis.
The district court denied habeas relief; Black appealed. He also sought to expand the Certificate of Appealability (COA) to include an uncertified claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his aiding-and-abetting conviction.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed: (1) Black received adequate notice of the aider-and-abettor theory, and (2) denied expansion of the COA because Black failed to make a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied regarding sufficiency of the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of notice of aider-and-abettor theory	Black: prosecution advanced aider-and-abettor theory without adequate notice, impairing his ability to prepare a defense	State: California charging rules and pretrial evidence (identifications, access to car) gave fair notice that aider-and-abettor liability was possible	Held: Notice was adequate; no Sixth Amendment/due process violation
Applicability of Sheppard precedent	Black: relied on Sheppard to argue lack of notice when theory arose late	State: Sheppard is a pre-AEDPA Ninth Circuit case and factually distinguishable; AEDPA confines relief to Supreme Court precedents	Held: Sheppard inapplicable under AEDPA and on the facts here
Sufficiency of the evidence (uncertified COA expansion)	Black: evidence did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as aider/abettor	State: trial judge’s credibility findings and circumstantial evidence support conviction	Held: COA not expanded; petitioner failed to show a substantial constitutional right denial
Deference on credibility and factual findings in habeas review	Black: asks federal review to reject state trial credibility findings	State: federal courts must defer to trial factfinder absent exceptional circumstances	Held: Federal habeas review must defer; no exceptional circumstances shown

Kernan v. Hinojosa, 136 S. Ct. 1603 (recognizing AEDPA constraints on federal habeas relief)
Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19 (discussing standards for federal habeas review)
Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3 (AEDPA review principles)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (clearly established federal law standard under AEDPA)
Sheppard v. Rees, 909 F.2d 1234 (Ninth Circuit decision on notice; held inapplicable here)
Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472 (trial-court credibility determinations and deference on habeas review)
United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158 ( Ninth Circuit en banc on deference to trial factfinder )
Ngo v. Giurbino, 651 F.3d 1112 (circumstantial evidence and inferences can support conviction)