Jorge H. Alvarez v. RON RACKLEY, Warden

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JORGE H. ALVAREZ,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
RON RACKLEY, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 14-55957
D.C. No. 5:11-cv-01587-VBF-
DTB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Valerie Baker Fairbank, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 6, 2016**
Pasadena, California
Before: M. SMITH, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
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.
FILED
JAN 08 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

Page 2 of 3
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 (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. 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
(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 car 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

-- 2 of 3 --

Page 3 of 3
murder. See People v. Perez, 234 P.3d 557, 562–63 (Cal. 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, 234 P.3d 501, 517–18 (Cal. 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, 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.

-- 3 of 3 --