NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

__________

No. 11-3220

___________

ISIDRO FLORES TEXIDOR, JR.,

 Appellant

v.

LOUIS S. FOLINO, Superintendent, SCI Greene;

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA; 

SCHUYLKILL COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY

______________

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

(D.C. Civ. Action No. 4-10-cv-01884)

District Judge: Honorable William W. Caldwell

______________

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

June 24, 2014

______________

Before: FUENTES, GREENAWAY, JR., NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.

(Opinion Filed: August 5, 2014)

______________

OPINION

______________

GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judge.
2

Isidro Flores Texidor, Jr. (“Texidor”) appeals from an order entered by the District 

Court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. For the reasons discussed below, 

we will affirm the order and deny Texidor’s request for habeas corpus relief.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Because we write primarily for the parties who are familiar with the facts and 

procedural history, we recount only the essential facts. 

On January 10, 2004, at approximately 2:30 am, Christine Pribish (“Pribish”), 

Ryan Winkler (“Winkler”), Christine Gearhart (“Gearhart”), Gearhart’s three children, 

and a man named Maurice were at Gearhart’s residence in Shenandoah, Pennsylvania. 

While Gearhart and Maurice were asleep upstairs and Gearhart’s children were asleep in 

the living room, there was a knock at the door. Pribish, who was in the kitchen with 

Winkler, approached the door and was told “Man”1 was at the door. Pribish awoke 

Gearhart upstairs, who then went downstairs and opened the door. Once the door was 

opened, Nazaniel Flores (“Flores”) and David Ortega, Jr. (“Ortega”), with Texidor, 

pushed their way into the residence. Once inside, Texidor immediately placed Gearhart 

into a headlock and put a gun to her head. Gearhart and Pribish were then directed into 

the kitchen and told to sit on the floor. Flores brought Winkler, who had previously gone 

upstairs, back to the kitchen and told him to lie on the floor, while Flores placed his foot 

on the back of Winkler’s head. 

 1 Gearhart knew Nazaniel Flores as “Man” from prior drug related transactions. 
3

Ortega tied Pribish’s hands with duct tape and attempted to do the same with 

Gearhart, but she refused. Texidor then held a gun to Gearhart’s head, to persuade her to 

comply, but when she refused again, Texidor hit her in the head with his gun. After this, 

Gearhart consented to be tied. 

Once Gearhart, Pribish, and Winkler were secured in the kitchen, Texidor and 

Flores proceeded upstairs. Gearhart testified to hearing a struggle upstairs and then a 

gunshot. It was later determined that the bullet lodged itself in the coach where one of 

Gearhart’s children were sleeping. Because the child screamed, Gearhart chewed 

through the duct tape around her hands, checked on her child, and then proceeded 

upstairs. Once upstairs, Gearhart found Flores rummaging through her dresser drawers. 

When Texidor and Flores found no money or safe, Texidor, Flores, and Ortega departed 

the residence.

Texidor was apprehended, tried before a jury, and found guilty of one count of 

robbery, three counts of aggravated assault, three counts of aggravated assault with a 

deadly weapon, three counts of simple assault, two counts of unlawful restraint, and 

criminal conspiracy. (App. 343-44.) The Court of Common Pleas sentenced Texidor to 

an aggregate term of 198 to 396 months of imprisonment. (App. 406.) After he was 

sentenced, Texidor filed a pro se notice of appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. 

The Superior Court affirmed Texidor’s judgment of sentence, and the Supreme Court of 

Pennsylvania denied Texidor’s petition for allowance of appeal. Texidor filed a pro se 

Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”) petition, which raised the issue of ineffective 

assistance of counsel. The PCRA court denied Texidor’s petition, and the Superior Court 
4

of Pennsylvania affirmed. Texidor filed a motion for allowance of appeal with the 

Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which was also denied. 

On September 9, 2010, Texidor filed a petition for habeas relief in the District 

Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The District Court, largely adopting the 

Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Martin Carlson, denied the petition for 

habeas relief. This Court granted a certificate of appealability on the question of 

“whether sufficient evidence in the trial record supports Texidor’s conviction of two 

counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and two counts of aggravated assault 

against victims Pribish and Winkler.” (App. 4.) 

II. JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW 

Texidor brought this action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We have jurisdiction under 

28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. On this appeal, we exercise plenary review over the 

District Court’s legal conclusions. See Alston v. Redman, 34 F.3d 1237, 1242 (3d Cir. 

1994). Furthermore, “inasmuch as the district court relied on the state court record in 

concluding that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions, we will exercise 

plenary review of that conclusion.” Orban v. Vaughn, 123 F.3d 727, 729 (3d Cir. 1997).

III. ANALYSIS 

Texidor seeks to have this Court vacate the judgment of sentence for his 

conviction of aggravated assault and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon against 

Winkler and Pribish. Texidor argues that he is entitled to relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 
5

§ 2254 because there was insufficient evidence produced at trial to establish the elements 

necessary for conviction under Pennsylvania law.2

“The evidence is sufficient to support a conviction whenever, ‘after viewing the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could 

have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Parker v. 

Matthews, 132 S. Ct. 2148, 2152 (2012) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319

(1979)). A state court decision rejecting a sufficiency challenge may not be overturned 

on federal habeas review unless the “decision was ‘objectively unreasonable.’” Cavazos

v. Smith, 132 S. Ct. 2, 4 (2011) (quoting Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S. 766, 768 (2010)). 

On this appeal we determine “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential 

elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. at

319. We must apply the above standard “with explicit reference to the substantive 

elements of the criminal offense as defined by state law.” Id. at 324 n.16.

Under Pennsylvania law, a person is guilty of aggravated assault if he “attempts to 

cause serious bodily injury to another, or causes such injury intentionally, knowingly or 

recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human 

 2 Appellees seek to have this Court exercise its discretion to decline to review 

three of the four counts on the theory that “‘the defendant remains sentenced in any event

. . . .” (Appellees’ Br. 5 (quoting Jones v. Zimmerman, 805 F.2d 1125, 1128 (3d Cir. 

1986).) Given the possibility that Texidor may suffer collateral consequences, we find it 

prudent to address the substantive issues surrounding all four claims and decline this 

invitation. See Jones v. Zimmerman, 805 F.2d at 1128 (“The fact that a defendant may 

possibly suffer collateral consequences, such as impaired parole eligibility, has been cited 

as an objection to use of the practice.”).
6

life . . . .” 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2702(a)(1). Attempt of a criminal act is attributed to the 

person when “with intent to commit a specific crime, he does any act which constitutes a 

substantial step toward the commission of that crime.” 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 901(a); see 

also Commonwealth v. Lopez, 654 A.2d 1150, 1154 (Pa. Super. 1995) (stating that 

attempt is established “when the accused intentionally acts in a manner which constitutes 

a substantial or significant step towards perpetrating serious bodily injury.”). 

Pennsylvania courts have employed “a totality of the circumstances test, to be used on a 

case-by-case basis, to determine whether a defendant possessed the intent to inflict 

serious bodily injury.” Commonwealth v. Matthew, 909 A.2d 1254, 1257 (Pa. 2006). 

Here, the record shows that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to 

enable the jury to conclude that Texidor had the requisite intent to inflict injury upon 

Winkler and Pribish. As to Winkler, Texidor held the gun to Winkler’s head while his 

accomplice held him down with his foot on Winkler’s neck. (See App. 335 (“We 

understand that Appellant did not inflict actual bodily injury to Winkler. However, 

Appellant did hold the weapon to Winkler’s head while Flores held the victim down with 

his foot on Winkler’s neck.”).). Pribish was directed to get on the floor, and had her 

hands tied down with duct tape. Gearhart was merely ten feet away from Pribish when 

Gearhart’s refusal to get her hands taped led to Texidor “pistol-whipp[ing]” her. (See 

App. 425-26, 440.) These circumstances conform to the kinds of cases in which 

Pennsylvania courts have found that defendants had the state of mind required to be 

guilty of aggravated assault. See Commonwealth v. Matthew, 909 A.2d 1254, 1259 (Pa. 

2006) (“Regarding the attempt element, there was sufficient evidence for the fact-finder 
7

to conclude appellant took a substantial step towards inflicting serious bodily injury since 

he pushed a loaded gun against Wachter’s throat . . . .”); see also Commonwealth v. 

Daniels, 354 A.2d 538 (Pa. 1976) (defendant fired a gun into crowd killing one man and 

injuring another); Commonwealth v. Laing, 456 A.2d 204 (Pa. Super. 1983) (defendant 

drove car into a crowd after having aimed it at one individual and then hit two people).

Evidence presented at trial was also sufficient to sustain Texidor’s conviction for 

aggravated assault with a deadly weapon against Pribish and Winkler. Under 

Pennsylvania law, a person is guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon when he 

“attempts to cause or intentionally or knowingly causes bodily injury to another with a 

deadly weapon . . . .” 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2702(a)(4). The Pennsylvania statute defines 

deadly weapon to include “[a]ny firearm, whether loaded or unloaded . . . .” 18 Pa. Cons. 

Stat. § 2301. The record here is abundantly clear that Texidor possessed a firearm during 

the break-in, and fired it in the presence of children. (See App. 428 (“I heard a loud bang, 

and my daughter screamed Mommy, and I just jumped and I looked at Christine [Pribish] 

and I said that was a gunshot, wasn’t it, and she said yea. And I wept running to my 

daughter.”); App. 429 (“The bullet was lodged in the back of the couch . . . that 

[Gearhart’s] daughter had been sleeping on . . . .”).) Under these factual circumstances, a

rational jury could have found that Texidor attempted to cause bodily injury with a 

deadly weapon to Winkler and Pribish. See Cavazos v. Smith, 132 S. Ct. at 4 (“[I]t is the 

responsibility of the jury—not the court—to decide what conclusions should be drawn 

from evidence admitted at trial.”). 
8

Therefore, we find that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the four convictions 

of Texidor. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the order of the District Court.