N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N
UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

DEM IC KO B ILLIE THOM AS,

Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,

v.
M AGGIE M ILLER -STOUT, W a rde n of Airwa y He ights C o rre c tiona l C e nte r, a nd the W a s hington Sta

te De pa rtm e nt of C orre c tions,
R e sponde nt-Appe lle e
. No. 18-35284
D.C . No. 2:11-c v-02186-R SM

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington R ic a rdo S. M a rtine z , Distric t Judge , Pre siding
Subm itte d August 28, 2019 ** Se a ttle , W a s hington
B e fore : HAW KINS, M c KEOW N, a nd B YB EE, C irc uit Judge s. W a shington s ta te prisone r De m ic ko B illie T hom a s (“ Thom a s” ) a ppe a ls the
distric t c ourt’ s de n i a l of his fe de ra l ha be a s pe tition whic h c ha lle nge d his c o nvic tions



# FIL ED

AUG 30 2019
M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a tion a nd is not p re 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 lud es t h is cas e is suita ble for de c i sion without ora l a rgum e nt. S

e e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).a nd s e nte nc e for fire a rm e nha nc e m e nts im

pose d in c onne c tion with his robbe ry of two je we lry store s in 2002. W e a ffirm

. The W a shington s ta te c ou r t d i d n ot unre a sona bly de te rm ine tha t suffic ie nt

e vide nc e supporte d the i m position of the f

i r ear m e nha

nc e m e nt w ith re spe c t to the

se c o nd robbe ry
. T he jury in s tr u ctions m ista ke nly re quire d proof the we a pon wa s
ope ra b le , whic h wa s not re quire d unde r W a shington la w. Se e State v
. W

ade , 138 P.3d 168, 176 (W a sh. Ct

. App. 2006). The Supre m e C ourt ha s he ld tha t “ whe n a jury
instruc tion se ts forth a l l the e le m e nts of the c ha rge d c rim e but inc or r ect ly adds o ne

more e le m e nt , a

suffic ie nc y

c ha lle nge should be a s se sse d a ga inst the e le m e nts of the

c ha rge d c rim e , not against the e rroneo u sl y he ighte n e d c o mmand in the jury
inst r u ct i o n .” Musac c hio v
. Unite d State s , 136 S. C t

. 709, 715 (2016) (e m pha sis

a dde d). Thus, the sta

te c ourt re a sona

bly c onc l ude d the gove rnm e n t wa s n ot re quire d to prove the we a

pon wa s ope ra

ble de spite the e rrone o us instruc tion.
The sta te c ourt a lso re a sona

bly c onc lude d the re w a s suffic ie nt ev i d en ce tha t Thom a s ha d use d a re a l w eap o n i n the c o m m ission of the robbe ry , tha t is, a we a pon

“ c a pa ble of disc ha

rging a proje c tile by a n e xplosive suc h a s gunpowde r.” D uring tria l

te stim ony , a v i ct i m d es c ribe d the we a pon a s “ a la

rge ha nd he ld g un, it wa s silve r,

a lum inum silve r co l o r. T he ba rre l of t he gun wa s a

bout tha t b ig from wha t I

re m e m be r a nd h a d a v e ry da

rk tunne l-looking hole i n the m iddle .” She a lso te stifie d

2tha t w he n Thom a s he l d the gun to he r ba c k i t “ fe lt v e ry he a vy , ve ry strong.” A se c ond

witne s s de sc ribe d the we a pon sim ila

rly a nd te stifie d tha t

Thom a s told the m , “ I don’ t

wa nt to hurt y ou,” whic h the c ourt of a ppe a l note d s upporte d a n infe re n c e tha t he wa s

“ c a pa ble of hurting the m with the we a pon he he ld.” Vie wing a ll re a sona b le infe re nc e s in the light m ost fa vora

b l e to t he prose c ution, the re wa s s uffic ie nt te s tim ony for a
rat i o na l juror to infe r tha t the gun wa s re a l. J ac k son v
. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 324 (1979).
W e d ecline to e xpa

nd the C e rtific a te of A ppe a la bility t o inc lude Thom a s’ s

c la i m t hat the im

position of the fire a rm e nha nc e m e nt viola

te s t he Double Je opa

rdy
C la use
. W e “ l oo k to the distric t c ourt’ s a pplic a tion of AEDPA t o pe titione r’ s

c onstitutiona

l c la im s a nd a sk whe the r t ha t re solu t io n wa s d e ba ta ble a m ongst jurists
of re a son.” Mille r-El v
. C o c k re ll , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). He re , the distric t c ourt
prop erly e va l u a te d Thom a s ’ s c la im s unde r a pplic a ble Supre m e C ourt la

w. Se e Missouri v
. Hunte r , 459 U .S. 359, 368–69 (1983) (no Double J e opa rdy viola tion whe n

“ a le gisla ture spe c ifi cal ly a

uthoriz e s c um

ula tive punishm e nt unde r two sta tute s,”
be c a use “ re ga rdle ss of w he the r those two sta tute s prosc ribe the ‘ sa m e ’ c onduc t unde r Bloc k b urge r , a c ourt's ta sk of sta t utory c o nstruc tion is a t an end a nd the prose c utor

m a y s e e k a nd the tria l co u r t or j ury m a y im pose c um ula tive punishm e nt unde r suc h

sta tute s in a single tria l” ).
AFFIRM E D.
3