Ricardo Estrada Barbarin v. RAYMOND MADDEN, Warden

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICARDO ESTRADA BARBARIN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
RAYMOND MADDEN, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 19-55010
D.C. No. 5:17-cv-00257-VBF-LAL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Valerie Baker Fairbank, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 15, 2019**
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Ricardo Estrada Barbarin appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and, reviewing de novo, see Maciel v. Cate,
731 F.3d 928, 932 (9th Cir. 2013), we affirm.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
OCT 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-55010
Barbarin contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s
finding that he was one of two gunmen whose attack on a group of individuals
resulted in the shooting death of a 13-year old boy. However, DNA evidence from
two pieces of clothing found at the crime scene matched Barbarin; he matched the
physical description of the attackers; the assailants referenced Barbarin’s gang, the
Eastside Rivas, and its Tiny Dukes clique, of which Barbarin became a member;
Barbarin may have had a motive to shoot two of the people in the group, for
reasons of “disrespect;” and Barbarin’s 2003 interview with a detective included
statements that could be interpreted as consciousness of guilt. In light of this
record, the state court’s conclusion that there was sufficient evidence to convict
Barbarin of first-degree murder and attempted murder was not contrary to, nor an
unreasonable application of, Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). See 28
U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Coleman v. Johnson, 566 U.S. 650, 651 (2012) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --