Opinion
Argued and Submitted July 7, 2003.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding.
Stephen Gilbert, Law Offices of Stephen Gilbert, Santa Monica, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Quisteen S. Shum, AGCA--Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before KOZINSKI, FERNANDEZ and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
There is no clearly established Supreme Court law holding that a defendant has a constitutional right to an instruction on a lesser included offense. Cf. Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625, 100 S.Ct. 2382, 65 L.Ed.2d 392 (1980) (holding that a lesser included offense instruction might be constitutionally required in capital cases because of their unique nature). Ruiz's state court conviction thus has not "resulted in a decision that was 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); see also Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 1172, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003).
AFFIRMED.