Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-09-99005/USCOURTS-ca9-09-99005-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 

---

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HECTOR JUAN AYALA,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

RONALD DAVIS, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 09-99005

D.C. No.

3:01-CV-01322-IEG-PLC

OPINION

On Remand From The United States Supreme Court

Filed February 11, 2016

Before: Stephen Reinhardt, Kim McLane Wardlaw,

and Consuelo M. Callahan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam Opinion

 Case: 09-99005, 02/11/2016, ID: 9862126, DktEntry: 72-1, Page 1 of 4
2 AYALA V. DAVIS

SUMMARY*

Habeas Corpus

On remand from the Supreme Court, the panel affirmed

the district court’s denial of a habeas corpus petition in a case

in which the petitioner sought relief based on a violation of

the Vienna Convention.

The panel held that under AEDPA’s deferential review,

the California Supreme Court’s conclusion that the petitioner

did not establish prejudice from the state’s failure to give

consular notice in violation of the Vienna Convention was not

objectively unreasonable.

COUNSEL

Robin L. Phillips and Anthony J. Dain of Procopio, Cory,

Hargreaves & Savitch LLP, San Diego, California, for

Petitioner-Appellant.

Robin H. Urbanski, Deputy Attorney General of California,

San Diego, California, for Respondent-Appellee.

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

 Case: 09-99005, 02/11/2016, ID: 9862126, DktEntry: 72-1, Page 2 of 4
AYALA V. DAVIS 3

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

We declined to address Ayala’s Vienna Convention claim

in our previous opinion because we granted relief based on

his Batson claims. Ayala v. Wong, 756 F.3d 656, 662 n.2 (9th

Cir. 2014). The Supreme Court reversed our decision

regarding those claims and remanded for further proceedings. 

Davis v. Ayala, 135 S. Ct. 2187 (2015). We now affirm the

district court’s denial of Ayala’s Vienna Convention claim

and its denial of the writ of habeas corpus.

A state prisoner such as Ayala faces an array of obstacles

to obtaining federal habeas relief for a state’s failure to give

consular notice in violation of the Vienna Convention. See

Medellin v. Dretke, 544 U.S. 660, 664–66 (2005). The state

court denied Ayala’s Vienna Convention claim because,

among other reasons, he did not establish prejudice. In re

Ayala, S081267, 2000 Cal. LEXIS 6833, at *1 (Aug. 30,

2000) (citing Breard v. Greene, 523 U.S. 371, 377 (1998)). 

Ayala does not dispute that prejudice is required. Thus, our

conclusion that the state court’s no prejudice finding was not

“objectively unreasonable” precludes granting relief in this

AEDPA case. Davis, 135 S. Ct. at 2198.

In Breard, the Supreme Court observed that no showing

of prejudice “could even arguably be made” in that case as a

result of the violation of the Vienna Convention. 523 U.S. at

377. Rather, it found that petitioner’s claim that he would

have accepted a guilty plea to avoid the death penalty if he

had been given advice by the consulate was “far more

speculative than the claims of prejudice courts routinely

reject” in ineffective assistance of counsel cases. Id. Ayala

 Case: 09-99005, 02/11/2016, ID: 9862126, DktEntry: 72-1, Page 3 of 4
4 AYALA V. DAVIS

claims that if he had been afforded consular notice, Mexican

officials would have sought to persuade the district attorney

to reconsider his decision to seek the death penalty and that

these officials have sometimes had success in this regard in

the past. Ayala, however, did not present any evidence

suggesting that the Mexican Consulate would have succeeded

in this case, particularly in light of the facts of the crime at

issue. Ayala also claims that the Consulate could have

secured a “critical guilt-phase witness,” but gives no inkling

of who this witness is or what he would have said. Finally,

Ayala contends that the Consulate would have sent an

observer to his trial and given him legal advice. Ayala was

represented at trial, however, by two attorneys whose

performance has not been called into question.

Although Ayala’s prejudice argument is stronger than

Breard’s, under AEDPA’s deferential review it was not

unreasonable for the California Supreme Court to conclude

that he has not shown sufficient prejudice to prevail on his

Vienna Convention claim.

The district court’s denial of Ayala’s writ of habeas

corpus is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 09-99005, 02/11/2016, ID: 9862126, DktEntry: 72-1, Page 4 of 4