Case Information
*1 Otis D. Wright II, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted October 2, 2017 Pasadena, California
Before: RAWLINSON and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN, [**] District Judge.
Carlos Luis appeals the denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 22 U.S.C. § 2254. We have jurisdiction under 22 U.S.C. § 2253(a), and we affirm. *2 1. Luis fails to identify any error in the instructions on first-degree murder and second-degree fetal murder—the offenses on which he was convicted. Under these circumstances, we can find no due process violation. Errors in state-law jury instructions alone will not sustain a federal due process claim. Estelle v. McGuire , 502 U.S. 62, 71-72 (1991). Although he claims that error in the instructions on lesser-included offenses infected his trial, he offers no explanation for how the alleged errors relieved the government of its obligation to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all elements of the offenses on which he was actually convicted. Middleton v. McNeil , 541 U.S. 433, 437 (2004).
2. Luis has not identified any independent due process right to have the jury correctly instructed on all lesser-included offenses. The Ninth Circuit has long rejected this type of habeas claim in non-capital cases, because the United States Supreme Court has expressly left this issue undecided. See Solis v. Garcia , 219 F.3d 922, 928 (9th Cir. 2000).
Even assuming such a claim existed, the California Court of Appeal found no error in the disputed instructions. People v. Luis , B240741, 2013 WL 4223695, at *11 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 13, 2013). Moreover, the California Court of Appeal determined that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. Luis has not demonstrated that these conclusions were unreasonable. See Davis v. Ayala , 135 S. *3 Ct. 2187, 2198-99 (2015) (holding that where a state court applies the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard “a federal court may not award habeas relief under § 2254 unless the harmlessness determination itself was unreasonable.” (emphasis in original) (quoting Fry v. Pliler , 551 U.S. 112, 119 (2007))).
AFFIRMED.
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. * * The Honorable Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.