N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M IC HAEL E. M OC KOVAK,

Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,
v. R ON HAYNES,

R e sponde nt-Appe lle e . No. 21-35634 D.C . No. 2:18-c v-00671-JLR
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington Jam e s L. R oba

rt, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d June 7, 2022 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : GILM AN, *** IKUTA, a nd M ILLER , C irc uit Judge s . 

# FIL ED
JUN 15 2022 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).

* * * The Honora

ble R ona ld Le e Gilm a

n , Unite d State s C irc uit Judgefor the U .S. C ourt of Appe a ls for the Sixth C irc u it, sitting by de signa tion.M ic ha e l M oc kova k a ppe a ls the distric t c o urt’ s de nia l of his pe tition for a writ of ha be a s c orpus unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2254. W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . §§ 1291 a

nd 2253. The W a s hington C ourt of Appe a ls’ s de t e rm i nation tha t M oc k ova

k ’ s tria l
c ounse l did not re n d e r ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l by

(a ) fa iling to inve stiga

te whe the r M oc kova

k’ s history

of c hildhood a

buse re nde re d him

m ore susc e ptibleto
e ntra pm e nt, a nd (b) fa iling to introduc e suc h e vide nc e at tria l (i.e ., a de fe nse of

“ le arne d he lple ssne ss” ), wa s not a n obje c tive ly

unre a sona

ble a p plic ation of Stric k land v . W ashington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Eve n a ssum i ng tha

t the sta te ha be a s c ourt’ s de t e rm ination tha t tria l c ounse l’ s pe rform anc e wa s not de fic ie nt wa s
an unre a s ona

ble a p plic ation of W

iggins v
. Smith , 539 U.S. 510 (2003), a nd Se ars v . Upton , 561 U.S. 945 (2010), 1 the sta te ha be a s c ourt c ould re a sona

bly c onc lude tha

t
any de fic ie n c y

by M oc kova

k’ s c ounse l wa s not pre

judic ia l, give n the “ e xte nsive
e vide nc e tha

t M o c kova

k initia t e d disc ussions with Kultin a b out hiring R

ussia n hitm e n,” and M oc kova

k’ s re sponse (“ That sounds good” ) whe n Kultin told him that e ve rything wa s in pla c e for King’ s m urde r. S e e State n v . Dav is , 962 F.3d 487, 495, 497 (9th C ir. 2020), c e rt. de nie d , 141 S. C t. 1502 (2021).

1 B e c a use we m ake this a ssum

ption, wedo not re a c h M oc kova k’ s a dditional argum e nts re ga

rding thede fic ie nc y

prong of the Stric k

land ana ly sis. 2W e re je c t M o c kova

k’ s a rgum e nt tha

t the sta te ha be a s c o urt c onfla

te d Stric k land ’ s de fic ie n c y

and pre j udic e prongs a

nd fa ile d to c onside r the tota lity of the e vide n c e in its pre

judic e ana ly sis. The c ourt se p ara te d its pre judic e ana ly sis from its de fic ie nc y

an a ly sis, c onside re d the le arne d he lple ssne s s e vide nc e tha t M oc kova k c la im e d should ha

ve be e n pre se n te d, a

nd de t e rm ine d tha

t M oc kova

k did not show a

re a sona ble proba bility tha t suc h e vide nc e would ha v e c ha nge d the outc om e of his tria l. AFFIRM E D.

3