N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
DER R YEL LEE, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt,
v. B R IAN B E LLEQUE, W arde n, R

e sponde n t - Appe lle e . No. 14-35005

D.C . No. 6:11-c v-01356-SI
M EM OR ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon M ic ha e l H. Sim on, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay

6, 2015 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : W . FLETC HER

and HUR

W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s, a

nd C UR IEL,** Distric t Judge
. Pe titione r De rry e l Le e a p pe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his pe tition



# F IL ED
MAY22 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent ex cept as provided by

9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The Honorable Gonz alo P. Curiel, District J udg e for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, sitting by desig nation.

1for writ of ha be a s c o rpus pursua

nt to 28 U.S.C . § 2254. He a lle ge s c onstitutiona l viola tions a rising from

jury m isc onduc t during de libe ra tions. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . §§ 1291 a nd 2253, a

nd we a ffirm
. W e re vie w a distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of a fe de ra l ha

b e a s pe tition denov o . C labourne v . Ry an , 745 F.3d 362, 370 (9th C ir. 2014). A distric t c ourt’ s fa c tua l findings a nd c re d ibility

de te rm i nations a

re re vie we d for c le ar e rror. J one s v . Tay lor , 763 F.3d 1242, 1245 (9th C ir. 2014). Fe de ra l c o urts “ will not re vie wa que stion of fe de ra l la

wde c ide d by

a sta te
c ourt if the de c ision of tha t c ourt re sts on a

sta te la w ground tha

t is inde pe nde nt of the fe de ra l que stion a

nd a de quate to support the judgm e nt.” C

o le man v . Thompson , 501 U.S. 722, 729 (1991). A sta t e proc e dura l rule is “ inde p e n de nt” if it is not “ inte rwove n with fe d e ra l la w.” La C rosse v . K e rnan , 244 F.3d 702, 704 (9th C ir. 2001). A sta

te rule is “ a de quate ” if it is “ c le a r, c onsiste ntly a

pplie d, a nd
we ll-e sta blishe d” a t

the tim e of the de fa

ult. C alde ron v . U.S. Distric t C ourt , 96 F.3d 1126, 1129 (9th C ir. 1996) (c ita tion omitte d). The sta te post-c o nvic tion re lie f (“ PC R ” ) tria l c ourt ba rre d Le e ’ s jury
m isc o nduc t c la im

ba se d on Palme r v . State , 867 P.2d 1368 (Or. 1994), whic h
announc e d a

sta te proc e d ura l rule tha

t prohibits post-c onvic tion re lie f on a n issue that c ould ha ve be e n ra ise d in the tria l c ourt but wa s not. Id. at 1369-70. The

2pa

rtie s do not dispute

tha t Palme r is indepe nde nt. Palme r

is a l so a de q

uate be c a use it is firmly

e sta blishe d an d re g u la

rly followe d
. Se e Le r

ma v . Palmate e r , 118 F. App’ x 174, 176 (9th C i r. 2004). C onse q ue ntly , Le e ’ s c la im

of jury m isc onduc t is proc e d ura lly de fa

ulte d. A sta te c ourt proc e d

ura l de fa u lt m ay be e xc use d only

if a ha be a s pe titione r c an de m onstra

te c a u se for the de fa

ult a nd re sulting pre

judic e . C ole man , 501 U.S.
a t 750. To e sta

blish c a use , a pe titione r m

ust show tha

t “ som e obje c tive fa c tor
e xte rna l to thede fe n se im pe de d . . . e fforts to c om

ply with theState ’ s proc e dura l rule .” Id. at 753 (quoting Murray v . C arrie r , 477 U.S. 478, 488 (1986)). To
e sta blish pre judic e , the pe titione r m

ust show “not m e re ly

tha t the e rrors at . . . tria l
c re ate d a possibility of pre judic e , but tha

t the y worke d to his ac tual

and substa

ntia l disa dva nta ge , infe c ting his e ntire tria l with e rror of c o nstitutiona l dim e nsions.” Murray , 477 U.S. a

t 494 (quoting Unite d State s v . Frady , 456 U.S. 152, 170 (1982) (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks om itte d) ). Le e argue s tha

t the sta te tria l c ourt’ s fa ilure to rule on his m o tion for a ne w tria l pre ve nte d his c o m

plia nc e with thesta

te ’ s proc e dura l rule and c onstitute s c a use e xc using his proc e dura l de fa u lt. W e disa gre e . Unde r Ore gon la w, a m otion for
ne w tria l is “ de e m e d de nie d” if a sta te tria l c o urt doe s not ruleon it within fifty
five da y s from the date of judgm e nt. Se e Or. R . C iv. P. 64F(1). M ore ove r, Le e
3fa ile d to prope rly a lle ge and prove one of the fe w na rrowly drawn e xc e ptions to Palme r . Se e 867 P.2d a

t 1371. Thesta

te PC R tria l c o urt he ld a

he aring on Le e ’ s fourth a m e nde d PC R pe tition a nd wa s pre se nte d with a

rgum e nt a n d e vide nc e c onc e rning whe n Le e le arne d a bout thejury

m isc onduc t. The PC R

tria l c ourt he ard te stim ony

from Le e an d his sister, Doris Le e , a

nd re vie we d e x hibits offe re d by both pa rtie s, inc luding thea ffidavits of Doris Le e and he r frie nd tha t e xpla ine d how the y le arne d a bout the jury

m isc onduc t. The sta

te PC R tria l c ourt’ s sum

m ary de nia l of Le e ’ s c la im

c iting Palme r

wa s a n im plic it re je c tion of Le e ’ s c re dibility on this issue , a

nd is pre sum e d c orre c t unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2254(e )(1). Se e Tinsle y v . Borg , 895 F.2d 520, 525 (9th C ir. 1990) (im plic it fa c tua l findings a

re e n title d to a pre s um ption of c orre c tne ss in a

ppropria te c irc um sta

n c e s); se e also Tay lor v . Horn , 504 F.3d 416, 433 (3d C ir. 2007) (“ Im plic it fa c t ua l findings a

re pre sum e d

c orre c t unde r § 2254(e )(1) to the sa m e e xte nt a s e xpre s s fa c tua l findings.” ). Sinc e Le e ha s fa ile d to de m onstra

te c a use , we ne e d not c onside r the pre judic e fa c tor. Se e Smith
v . Murray , 477 U.S. 527, 533 (1986). Ne xt, Le e c onte nds the distric t c ourt’ s finding tha t Le e la c ke d c re dibility
wa s c le arly

e rrone ous a

nd the distric t c ourt should ha v e he ld a n e vide ntia

ry he aring
on c re dibility

be fore m aking a

ny fa c tua l findings. W e disa gre e . The distric t c ourt
re vie we d the PC R tria l c ourt proc e e dings a s we ll a s the doc um e n ts tha t we re be fore

4the PC R

tria l c ourt. The PC R

tria l c o urt im

plic i tly c onc lude d tha

t Le e la c ke d
c re d ibility

on whe n he first le a

rne d of the a lle ge d jury

m i sc onduc t by

de ny ing his PC R pe tition ba s e d on Palme r. The distric t c o urt’ s c re dibility

de t e rm i nation is thus be st unde rstood a s a

de te rm ination tha

t the PC R tria l c ourt’ s im

plic it
c re d ibility

de te rm inat ion wa s not a

n unre a sona

ble finding of fa c t. Se e 28 U.S.C . § 2254(e )(1). The re fore , the d i stric t c ourt did not err in de c lining to hold a n e vide ntia ry he a ring to ta k e ne w e vide nc e on the que stion of whe the r Le e wa s te lling thetruth a

bout whe n he le arne d of the a lle ge d jury m i sc onduc t. AFFIRM E D
.

5