Case Name: Jorge H. ALVAREZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ron RACKLEY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-01-08
Citations: 628 F. App'x 533
Docket Number: No. 14-55957
Parties: Jorge H. ALVAREZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ron RACKLEY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: M. SMITH, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 628
Pages: 533–534

Head Matter:
Jorge H. ALVAREZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ron RACKLEY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 14-55957.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 6, 2016.
Filed Jan. 8, 2016.
Vivian Fu, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
David Delgado-Rucci, Esquire, Emily R. Hanks, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: M. SMITH, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jorge Alvarez appeals from the district court's judgment denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Reviewing the district court's decision de novo, Clabourne v. Ryan, 745 F.3d 362, 370 (9th Cir.2014), we affirm.
Alvarez contends that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his conviction for attempted premeditated murder. See Cal.Penal Code § 187(a), 664, & 12022.53(d). Under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), we are bound to reject challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction unless, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we are convinced that no rational jury could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781. And under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), we may grant federal habeas relief based on the unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law only if the state court decision rejecting a petitioner's claim on the merits is objectively unreasonable. Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 75-76, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003); see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
The California Court of Appeal's conclusion that sufficient evidence supported Alvarez's conviction is not objectively unreasonable. Alvarez initially shot his victim multiple times from a distance of no more than a few ear lengths. He then pulled his truck next to his victim's vehicle (which by then had crashed and was immobilized) and fired at least three more times. One of the bullets struck the victim in the leg. The shooting caused severe injuries from which the victim has not fully recovered. That course of conduct is consistent with attempted murder. See People v. Perez, 50 Cal.4th 222, 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 310, 234 P.3d 557, 562-63 (2010). Alvarez also had the gun readily available when he came upon his victim and admitted putting the gun in his truck the morning of the shooting, evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer that he reflected on the consequences of his actions before taking them. See People v. Solomon, 49 Cal.4th 792, 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 244, 234 P.3d 501, 517-18 (2010). Alvarez objects that there was no evidence linking him to his victim. But evidence of such a connection is not required to sustain an attempted premeditated murder conviction, see Perez, 112 Cal. Rptr.3d 310, 234 P.3d at 563, and the evidence the jury did receive more than sufficed to support his conviction under the deferential standard that Jackson and AEDPA impose.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.