Section 2254 Petition Can't Be Used to Challenge State Courts' Interpretation of Statute

Anderson-Bey v. Zavaras, 2011 WL 1760026 (5/9/11) (Colo.) (Published) - The 10th explores when a 28 USC § 2254 challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is really a challenge to the state courts' interpretation of a state statute. When it's the latter, the petitioner is out of luck. Here the Colorado courts decided that an employee of a sandwich shop was "in control of" the cash the petitioner took from the cash register, even though the employee did not handle the money and did not even know how to open the register. It was enough that he knew where the money taken from the register was hidden and he closed the business at the end of the day. This was a matter of state law which federal courts may not second-guess. The robbery conviction stands. And the petitioner could not challenge a different conviction that increased his robbery sentence because he had finished serving his sentence for the prior conviction and he did not claim he was deprived of his right to counsel with respect to the prior conviction.