Marcos Mendiola v. Anthony Hedgpeth, Warden

MEMORANDUM

Marcos Mendiola appeals from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. Mendiola argues that the state trial court erred when it instructed the jury that it could consider whether voluntary intoxication negated Mendiola’s ability to form the specific intent necessary to commit murder and carjacking, but then failed to further instruct the jury on the lesser-included offenses of involuntary manslaughter and assault.

Even assuming that Mendiola had a basis to argue that the omission of these instructions constituted error under federal law, we agree with the district court that any such error was harmless under Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993). As the California Court of Appeal recognized, Mendiola did not actually develop evidence to support an intoxication defense at trial. The evidence in the record establishes only that Mendiola had smoked methamphetamine shortly before the crime occurred. But there was no testimony, including from Mendiola himself, to suggest that Mendiola had used methamphetamine to the point of impairing his functioning or judgment. Indeed, Mendio-la’s description…