[T][U] Longworth v. Wright

MEMORANDUM* Arthur Longworth, a Washington state prisoner, appeals the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. Following a jury trial, Longworth was convicted of aggravated first degree murder and sentenced to a term of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Longworth contends that a jury instruction so infected his entire trial that it deprived him of his constitutional right to due process. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo, Sanders v. Ratelle, 21 F.3d 1446, 1451 (9th Cir. 1994), and affirm. Federal courts cannot grant habeas relief for mere state law errors. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67, 116 L. Ed. 2d 385, 112 S. Ct. 475 (1991); Suniga v. Bunnell, 998 F.2d 664, 666 (9th Cir. 1993). Federal habeas relief is required only if a faulty jury instruction by itself infects the entire trial to such an extent that the resulting conviction violates due process. McGuire, 502 U.S. at 72; Jeffries v. Blodgett, 5 F.3d 1180, 1195 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 127 L. Ed. 2d 647, 114 S. Ct. 1294 (1994). We review an ambiguous instruction to determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way that violates the constitution. McGuire, 502 U.S. at 72; Carriger v. Lewis, 971 F.2d 329, 334 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 123 L. Ed. 2d 163, 113 S. Ct. 1600 (1993).