N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JOR GE H. ALVAR

EZ, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt,
v. R ON R AC KLEY, W arde n, R

e sponde n t - Appe lle e . No. 14-55957

D.C . No. 5:11-c v-01587-VB FDTB
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia V a le rie B ake r Fa irba

nk, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Ja

n u ary 6, 2016 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : M . SM ITH, WATFORD, a nd FR IEDLAND, C i rc uit Judge s. Jorge Alva

re z a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt de ny ing his pe tition for a w rit of ha

be a s c orpus. R e vie wing the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision denovo, C labourne v . Ry an , 745 F.3d 362, 370 (9th C ir. 2014), we a ffirm
. 

# FIL ED JAN 08 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).Pa ge 2 of 3

Alva re zc o nte nds tha

t the e vide nc e at tria l wa s insuffic ie nt to support his
c onvic tion for a

tte m pte d pre m e dita

te d m urde r. Se e C a l. Pe na l C ode §§ 187(a ), 664, & 12022.53(d). Under J ac k son v . Virginia , 443 U.S. 307 (1979), we are bound to re

je c t c ha lle nge s to the suffic ie nc y of the e vide nc e supporting a
c onvic tion unle ss, vie wing the e vide nc e in the light m ost fa vora b le to the prose c ution, weare c o nvinc e d tha t no ra tiona l jury

c ould ha ve found the e sse ntia l
e le m e nts of thec rim e be y ond a re a sona ble doubt. Id. at 319. And under the Antite rrorism

and Effe c tive De ath Pe na lty Ac t of 1996 (AEDPA), we m ay grant fe de ra l ha be a s re lie f ba se d on the unre a s ona ble a pplic ation of c l e arly e sta

blishe d Fe de ra l la w only if the sta te c ourt de c ision re

je c ting a pe titione r’ s c la im on the
m e rits is obje c tive ly

unre a sona

b le
. Loc k y e r v . Andrade , 538 U.S. 63, 75–76 (2003); se e 28 U.S.C
. § 2254(d)(1). The C a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l’ s c onc lusion tha t suffic ie nt e vide nc e supporte d Alva

re z ’ s c o nvic tion is not obje c tive ly unre a sona

ble . Alva re z initia lly shot his vic tim

m ultipletim e s from

a dista n c e of no m ore tha

n a fe w c ar le n gths. He the n pulle d his truc k ne xt to his vic t im ’ s ve h ic le (whic h by the n ha d c ra s he d
and wa s im

m o biliz e d) and fire d at le a st thre e m ore tim e s. One of the bulle ts struc k the v ic tim in the le g . The shooting c a use d se ve re injurie s from whic h the vic tim ha s not fully re c ove re d. Tha t c ourse of c onduc t is c onsiste nt with a tte m p te dPa ge 3 of 3

m urde r. Se e Pe o

p lev . Pe re

z , 234 P.3d 557, 562–63 (C a l. 2010). Alva re z a lso ha d the g un re a dily

ava i la ble whe n he c am e upon his vic tim an d a dm itte d putting the gun in his truc k the m orning of theshooting, evide nc e from whic h a re a sona ble jury c ould infe r that he re fle c te d on the c onse que nc e s of his a c t ions be fore ta king the m . Se e Pe oplev . Solomon , 234 P.3d 501, 517–18 (C a l. 2010). Alva re z obje c ts that the re wa s no e vide nc e linking him to his vic tim . B ut e vide n c e of suc h a
c onne c tion is not re quire d to sustain a n atte m pte d pre m e dita

te d m urde r c onvic tion,
se e P e r e z , 234 P.3d a

t 563, a n d the e vide nc e the jury

did re c e i ve m ore tha

n suffic e d to support his c onvic tion unde r the de fe re n tia l sta nda rd tha t J ac k son and AEDPA im

pose . AFFIRM E D.