Cekoven Jewel Johnson, aka Darrell Thomas, Duke v. ROBERT A. HOREL, Warden

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr., Senior United States Circuit
Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CEKOVEN JEWEL JOHNSON, aka
Darrell Thomas, Duke,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ROBERT A. HOREL, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 07-56369
D.C. No. CV-06-03263-JSL
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
J. Spencer Letts, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 2, 2009
Pasadena, California
Before: SCHROEDER, IKUTA, and SILER, ** Circuit Judges.
Cekoven Johnson, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court’s
denial of his writ of habeas corpus challenging his conviction of two counts of
FILED
NOV 13 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
attempted premeditated murder. He claims the evidence was insufficient to
support the convictions.
The evidence showed that Johnson and his co-defendant saw the victims,
who were members of a rival gang, and pushed and then drove their car along-side
the rival gang members. After Johnson brandished a gun at the victims and
shouted a derogatory description of the rival gang, multiple gunshots were fired.
The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the verdict, was
sufficient for a rational fact-finder to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that
Johnson was guilty of attempted premeditated murder. See Jackson v. Virginia,
443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). The California court’s application of Jackson was not
unreasonable. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
Johnson also asks us to broaden the certificate of appealability to decide
whether the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury on the use of
circumstantial evidence. The issue does not present a federal question. It is a
question of state law that does not rise to the level of a violation of due process.
See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 71-72 (1991).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --