Federal Judiciary

10th Circuit Notes Intra-Circuit Split Re Whether, under AEDPA, a Sufficiency-of-the-Evidence Issue Is Reviewed as Legal or Factual Finding

By A. Benjamin Spencer

As stated above, a writ of habeas corpus will not be issued unless the state court's legal conclusions are ?contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,? 28 U .S.C. § 2254(d)(1), or the state court's factual conclusions are ?based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding,? id. at § 2254(d)(2). ?[A] determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct.? 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). Tenth Circuit authority is divided as to ?whether, under AEDPA, we review a sufficiency-of-the-evidence issue as a legal determination under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) or a factual finding under § 2254(d)(2) and (e)(1).? Romano v. Gibson, 239 F.3d 1156, 1164 n. 2 (10th Cir.2001); see also Dockins v. Hines, 374 F.3d 935, 939 (10th Cir.2004); Torres v. Mullin, 317 F.3d 1145, 1151 (10th Cir.2003). Under either standard, Petitioner's claim in this case fails.

Full post as published by Split Circuits on February 05, 2008 (boomark / email).