Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Raul Macias Garcia v. James A. Yates

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


June 1, 2012

RAUL MACIAS GARCIA,
PETITIONER,
v.
JAMES A. YATES, WARDEN, RESPONDENT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Larry Alan Burns United States District Judge

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

On May 29, 2012, the Court issued an order adopting Magistrate Judge McCurine's report and recommendation (the "R&R") and denying Petitioner Garcia's petition for writ of habeas corpus.

The R&R recommended made findings, and recommended denying the petition. Garcia filed objections, which the Court overruled. Some of Garcia's objections were plainly frivolous. For example, he objected to the R&R's failure to consider claims he never mentioned in his petition. Garcia also objected to the R&R's conclusion that his convictionw as not supported by adequate evidence. This was not a borderline or questionable case, however. As set forth in the Court's May 29 order, the evidence against him was easily adequate to support a conviction, and the standard for adequacy of the evidence set forth in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) is clearly met.

Garcia also attempted to raise a claim that the trial court didn't instruct the jury on the elements of the offense. This argument failed because he didn't exhaust it. Moreover, even if he had exhausted it, his claim wasn't meritorious. The state trial court used an approved jury instruction (from the California Jury Instructions -- Criminal, or CALJIC) that mentioned all the elements of the offense and was comprehensible to jurors. And finally, the state court reasonably found that even if there were instructional error, it was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence against him.

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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20120601

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.