Garcia v. Yates

Filing 50

Order Denying Certificate of Appealability. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 6/1/12. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(kaj)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RAUL MACIAS GARCIA,

12

CASE NO. 08cv1993-LAB (WMc)
Petitioner,

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE
OF APPEALABILITY

vs.
13

JAMES A. YATES, Warden,

14

Respondent.

15
16

On May 29, 2012, the Court issued an order adopting Magistrate Judge McCurine’s

17

report and recommendation (the “R&R”) and denying Petitioner Garcia’s petition for writ of

18

habeas corpus.

19

The R&R recommended made findings, and recommended denying the petition.

20

Garcia filed objections, which the Court overruled. Some of Garcia’s objections were plainly

21

frivolous. For example, he objected to the R&R’s failure to consider claims he never

22

mentioned in his petition. Garcia also objected to the R&R’s conclusion that his convictionw

23

as not supported by adequate evidence. This was not a borderline or questionable case,

24

however. As set forth in the Court’s May 29 order, the evidence against him was easily

25

adequate to support a conviction, and the standard for adequacy of the evidence set forth

26

in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) is clearly met.

27

Garcia also attempted to raise a claim that the trial court didn’t instruct the jury on the

28

elements of the offense. This argument failed because he didn’t exhaust it. Moreover, even
-1-

08CV1993

1

if he had exhausted it, his claim wasn’t meritorious. The state trial court used an approved

2

jury instruction (from the California Jury Instructions – Criminal, or CALJIC) that mentioned

3

all the elements of the offense and was comprehensible to jurors. And finally, the state court

4

reasonably found that even if there were instructional error, it was harmless in light of the

5

overwhelming evidence against him.

6
7

The standard for issuance of a certificate of appealability, see Slack v. McDaniel, 529
U.S. 473, 483–84 (2000), is not met here, and the certificate is therefore DENIED.

8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 1, 2012

11
12

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

08CV1993