[the] Court’s decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner’s case.” Id. Finally, a state court decision involves “an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in state court proceedings,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2), only if it is shown by clear and convincing evidence that the state court’s presumptively correct factual findings do not enjoy support in the record. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). A. Fourteenth Amendment due process In his due process challenge, Whitehead asserts that no rational jury could have found that he acted “with the purpose of causing serious physical injury,” as required for second degree murder, Mo. Stat. Ann. § 565.021. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 320-21, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (<HOLDING>). In Jackson, the Supreme Court clarified the
holding claim is cognizable holding that an error pertaining to a mixed question of law and fact under state law is not cognizable in a federal habeas proceeding holding claim is not cognizable holding claim that prior conviction was not serious felony under californias sentencing law not cognizable in federal habeas proceeding holding that sufficiency challenges are cognizable in a federal habeas proceeding