Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01993/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01993-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAUL MACIAS GARCIA,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 08cv1993-LAB (WMc)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE

vs. OF APPEALABILITY

JAMES A. YATES, Warden,

Respondent.

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

- 1 - 08CV1993

Case 3:08-cv-01993-LAB-WMC Document 50 Filed 06/04/12 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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.

DATED: June 1, 2012

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 08CV1993

Case 3:08-cv-01993-LAB-WMC Document 50 Filed 06/04/12 Page 2 of 2