Anthony Garcia v. Tom L. Carey, Warden

Petitioner Anthony Garcia was convicted of robbery in California state court. The jury found that the robbery was gang related, and that a gun had been used. Garcia’s sentence was increased because of those two findings. After exhausting state remedies, Garcia filed a petition for habeas corpus in federal court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 , challenging his sentence. The district court granted the petition on the ground that there was constitutionally insufficient evidence to support the imposition of the gang and gun sentencing enhancements. The State, in the person of prison warden Tom Carey, appeals. We affirm the district court’s grant of habeas relief.

I. Background

The jury found to be true the allegation that Garcia had committed the robbery “for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with [a] criminal street gang, with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in any criminal conduct by gang members.” CAL. PENAL CODE § 186.22(b)(1) (emphasis added). 2 The disputed issue on this appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient, under applicable federal habeas corpus standards, to sup *1101 port the jury’s finding of the required specific intent:…

dissenting:

The majority concludes that habeas relief is warranted because there is “no evidence” that Garcia committed the robbery with the “specific intent to promote, further, or assist in any criminal conduct by gang members.” CAL. PENAL CODE § 186.22(b)(1). I believe that the majority misinterprets the requirements of section 186.22(b)(1), fails to credit the rational inferences that could be made from the record, and misapplies the provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Thus, I respectfully dissent.

My first disagreement with the majority’s analysis concerns its interpretation of section 186.22(b)(1). See Chein v. Shum-sky, 373 F.3d 978, 983 (9th Cir.2004) (en banc) (“The Jackson standard must be applied with explicit reference to the substantive elements of the criminal offense as defined by state law” (internal quotations omitted)). The majority contends that there was no evidence indicating what particular criminal gang activity Garcia intended to further in committing the robbery. See Ante at 1103 (“The expert’s testimony is singularly silent on what criminal activity of the gang was furthered or intended to be furthered by the…

395 F.3d 1099 Anthony GARCIA, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Tom L. CAREY, Warden, Respondent-Appellant. No. 02-56895. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted February 4, 2004. Filed January 20, 2005. Lawrence M. Daniels, Deputy Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for the respondent-appellant. Isaac E. Guillen, Robert P. Ramirez, Covina, CA, for the petitioner-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-01-03455-R. Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges. CANBY, Circuit Judge. 1 Petitioner Anthony Garcia was convicted of robbery in California state court. The jury found that the robbery was gang related, and that a gun had been used. Garcia's sentence was increased because of those two findings. After exhausting state remedies, Garcia filed a petition for habeas corpus in federal court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 , challenging his sentence. The district court granted the petition on the ground that there was constitutionally insufficient evidence to support the imposition of the gang and gun sentencing enhancements. The State, in the…