N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JER R Y FUENTES, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt,
v. M ARION SPEARM AN, R

e sponde nt - Appe lle e . No. 14-15246

D.C . No. 2:11-c v-02225-JAM -AC
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia J ohn A. M e nde z , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 18, 2015 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : W . FLETC HER , B ER ZON, a nd B EA, C irc uit Judge s. A C a lifornia jury

found Je rry

Fue nte s guilty

of first-de gre e m

urde r. His
c onvic tion be c am e fina l in M ay 2005. In 2011, he

file d a ha be a s pe t ition in fe de ra l distric t c o urt a

rguing tha

t tria l c ounse l wa s ine ffe c tive for not proffe ring the
e vide nc e c o nta ine d in a

pre -tria l ne uropsy c h ologic a l re p ort. The distric t c ourt 

# FIL ED OCT 09 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3.de nie d the pe tition. Fuente s a p pe a ls thede nia l . W e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l de novo. A li v . Hink man , 584 F.3d 1174, 1181 (9th C i r. 2009). Fue nte s did not file

a ha be a s pe tition within one

y e ar a fte r his c onvic tion be c am e fina l in M ay

2005. W e a ssum e without de c iding, a s did thedistric t c ourt, that Fue nte s c an ove rc om e AEDPA’ s one -y e a r sta tute of lim ita

tions under 28 U.S.C . § 2244(d)(1) by

proving tha

t he is e ntitle d to e quita

ble tolling. Sim

ila rly , we a ssum e without de c iding tha t Fue nte s’ ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l c la im

is not proc e dura l ly

de fa ulte d. S e eFrank lin v
. J ohnson , 290 F.3d 1223, 1232 (9th C ir. 2002). Afte r a ssum ing the se issue s in Fue nte s’ favor a n d re v ie wing his c la im

de novo, we a gre e with the distric t c ourt tha t he ha s not prove n tha

t he wa s pre

judic e d by ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c o unse l
. Stric k

land v . W ashington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984). He ha s not shown tha t , but for c ounse l’ s a l le ge d e rror, it wa s re a sona bly proba b le tha t the re s ult of his trial would ha ve be e n diffe re nt. Se eid. at 693-94. Fue nte s ’ tria l c ounse l a

rgue d tha t Fue nte s wa s not guilty

of m urde r be c a

use Fue nte s kille d the vic tim

in re sponse to thevic tim ’ s provoc ation. In his petition, Fue nte s a rgue s tha t c ounse l should ha

ve introduc e d e vide nc e re late d in the
ne uropsy c hologic a l re port a t tria l be c a

use it prove d tha

t Fue nte s la c ks im

pulse
c ontrol. Ac c ording to Fue nte s, the re port would ha ve bolste re d c ounse l’ s a

rgum e nt 2that

Fue nte s wa s guilty

of only volunta ry m ansla u ghte r, rathe r tha

n m urde r. Howe ve r, unde r C a lifornia la w, a dim inishe d a c tua l ity

de fe nse suc h a s Fue nte s’
c an be use d only

to support a

ve rdic t of involunta

ry m a n sla ughte r or a c quitta l. Pe oplev . Saille , 54 C a l . 3d 1103, 1117 (1991). Thus, tria l c o unse l c ould not ha

ve use d the re port to support a ve rdic t of volunta ry m a nsla ughte r. Tria l c ounse l a lso a

rgue d tha t Fue nte s c ould not befound guiltyof firstde gre e m urde r be c a

use he did not pre m e dita

te and de libe rate on the killing. Fue nte s now a

rgue s tha t the sa m e re port should ha

ve be e n proffe re d be c a

use his im pulsivity supports the

the ory tha t he did not re fle c t on his de c ision to kill the vic t im . Howe ve r, the ne uropsy c hologic a l re port doe s not m ake any re fe re nc e to Fue nte s’ c onduc t at the tim e of the killing. Furtherm ore , C a lifornia la w prohibits de fe nda nts from introduc ing m e nta l he a lth e vide nc e to support this kind of dim inishe d c a

pa c ity de fe nse . S

e e C a l. Pe na l C ode § 28. Ac c ordingly , Fue nte s ha s not prove n tha

t he wa s pre

judic e d by

c ounse l’ s de c ision not to proffe r the
ne uropsy c hologic a l re port a t tria l. AFFIRM E D.

3