Opinion ID: 174346
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Legal Sufficiency of the Evidence Supporting Petitioner Mannix's Conviction

Text: Mannix's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction is plainly without merit. [14] Mannix cannot demonstrate that no rational trier of fact could have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Einaugler v. Supreme Court of State of N.Y., 109 F.3d 836, 839 (2d Cir.1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). Nor can Mannix rebut by clear and convincing evidenceour presumption that the state court's determination of this factual issue was correct. See Leslie v. Artuz, 230 F.3d 25, 31 (2d Cir. 2000). At trial, the people's theory was that Mannix was angry at Torruella because he sucker-punched him in the face and that, bent on retaliation, he recklessly fired the fatal shot through the bathroom door. As the appellate division found, [t]he evidence warranted the conclusion that [petitioner] knowingly and deliberately fired a pistol through a door into a small, enclosed space containing the victim and a bystander. Mannix, 756 N.Y.S.2d at 34. Mannix bases his sufficiency challenge, in part, on the fact that no one saw the gun discharge and no one saw him point the gun at the door or fire it. Mannix Br. at 55. However, shortly after he shot Torruella and left the bar, Mannix called the bar, inquired if he had hit anyone, and when he learned that he had, replied: good. Mannix, 756 N.Y.S.2d at 34. We agree with the district court that the evidence was easily sufficient for a jury to conclude that Mannix fired the shot into the ladies' room recklessly and not accidentally. Mannix, 390 F.Supp.2d at 294. Indeed, evidence adduced at trial revealed that the bullet that killed Torruella was fired through the center of the door at chest level. Accordingly, we find that legally sufficient evidence supports Mannix's conviction. Mannix is not entitled to habeas relief on this basis.