Wilson v. Legrand, 110618 FED9, 17-15153

Docket Nº:17-15153
Party Name:MICHAEL DUANE WILSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ROBERT LEGRAND, Warden; and ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondents-Appellees.
Judge Panel:Before: WALLACE, KLEINFELD, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:November 06, 2018
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

MICHAEL DUANE WILSON, Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

ROBERT LEGRAND, Warden; and ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 17-15153

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

November 6, 2018

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted October 19, 2018 [**] San Francisco, California

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 3:14-cv-00071-RCJ-VPC

Before: WALLACE, KLEINFELD, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM[*]

Michael Duane Wilson, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals from the district court's order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We AFFIRM.

Wilson asserts six separate "Grounds" for habeas relief. Ground One is divided into subsections 1(a), 1(b), and 1(c): 1(a) challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction under the standard set forth in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979); 1(b) challenges the state trial court's decisions to deny Wilson's pretrial motions for improper grand jury involvement, improper forum-shopping, and failure to sever the counts; and 1(c) challenges the standards of review applied by the trial court in denying Wilson's motion for judgment of acquittal or new trial. Wilson argues that the three Ground One subsections are part of one overarching claim for insufficient evidence under Jackson.

The district court dismissed all six Grounds for habeas relief. In dismissing Ground One, the district court analyzed subsections 1(a), 1(b), and 1(c) as separate claims. Claim 1(a) was denied on the merits. Claims 1(b) and 1(c) were dismissed for lack of exhaustion "to the extent they set forth federal constitutional claims separate from the insufficiency of evidence claim" in claim 1(a). (Emphasis added.) The other Grounds were similarly denied on the merits or dismissed for lack of exhaustion.

A motions panel of this court granted a Certificate of Appealability limited to the following issues: "whether the district court erred by (1) reorganizing Ground One in the amended habeas petition, and (2) finding that the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP