Ishmael Garcia v. ROBERT A. HOREL, Warden

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ISHMAEL GARCIA,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ROBERT A. HOREL, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 11-55843
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00797-JFW-
PLA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted July 13, 2012
Pasadena, California
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, REINHARDT and WATFORD, Circuit
Judges.
Garcia appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas
corpus, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for
attempted murder. He argues that the state presented insufficient evidence
showing he acted with the specific intent to kill another human being.
FILED
JUL 26 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
The district court correctly rejected Garcia’s claim. Under California law, it
was enough for the jury to find that Garcia intended to kill someone, even if he did
not have a specific target in mind. See People v. Stone, 205 P.3d 272, 278 (Cal.
2009); see also People v. Griggs, 265 Cal. Rptr. 53, 57 (Ct. App. 1989). Here, the
state presented evidence that Garcia fired seven hollow-point bullets from a .22
caliber rifle into the interior courtyard of an occupied apartment complex. The
front doors of the units faced the interior courtyard into which Garcia fired; one
round hit an apartment door and others struck a stairwell railing and a planter
within the courtyard. Additionally, the state presented evidence indicating that
Garcia knew the apartment units were occupied, as he was present during an earlier
shooting at the same apartment complex an hour before, at which time residents
were milling about in and near the courtyard.
Applying the doubly deferential standard we use to review a sufficiency-of-
the-evidence claim raised in a habeas petition, we cannot say that the California
Supreme Court’s rejection of Garcia’s claim was objectively unreasonable. See
Cavazos v. Smith, 132 S. Ct. 2, 3-4 (2011) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 3 --

Garcia v. Horel, No. 11-55843
REINHARDT, Circuit Judge, concurring:
I concur in the disposition, but would grant a certificate of appealability on
the issue of whether the Information alleging the attempted murder of “John Doe”
provided Garcia constitutionally sufficient notice of the charges against him. See
Allen v. Ornoski, 435 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (certificate of appealability
should be granted when “the issues are debatable among jurists of reason”).
FILED
JUL 26 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 3 of 3 --