Where the jury could have rationally found the defendant guilty of burglary and grand theft of lost property, the defendant is not entitled to federal habeas relief. The petitioner was charged with several offenses related to his possession and sale of a ring that disappeared from a house where he had been doing construction work. He told police that he had found the ring outside of the house. He was convicted in California state court of burglary and grand theft of lost property, and in federal court he argued that the convictions violated due process because they were logically inconsistent. The Ninth Circuit panel affirmed the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. While the United States Supreme Court has held that inconsistent verdicts may stand if one verdict is a conviction and the other an acquittal, the court has not addressed the issue of inconsistent convictions. However, the convictions here were not logically inconsistent, because the jury could have found that the defendant was guilty of burglary even though he found nothing of value in the house, while also determining that he later found the ring on the ground as he had claimed.