N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
DION GUSSNER , Pe titione r - Appe lla nt, v. TER R I GONZALEZ, W arde n, W arde n of the C a lifornia

M e n’ s C olony , C a lifornia De pa rtm e nt of C o rre c tions, Sta te of C a l ifornia , R

e sponde nt - Appe lle e . No. 14-16135

D.C . No. 5:12-c v-01876-LHK M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Luc y Koh, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 18, 2015 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia 

# FIL ED SEP 22 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. ** 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 eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).B e fore : C HR ISTEN and FRIEDLAND, C irc uit Judge s, a nd LEM ELLE, * ** Se nior Distric t Judge
. Dion Gussner a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his 28 U.S.C . § 2254 ha be a s c orpus pe t ition c l a im ing ine ffe c t ive a ssista nc e of c ounse l re lat e d to his de c ision to ple a d guilty

to gross vehic ula

r m an sla ughte r. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2253, a n d we a ffirm
. To pre va i l on a

c la im of ine ffe c tive a s sista

nc e of c ounse l , Gussne r ne e de d to e sta blish tha t his c ounse l’ s pe rform anc e wa s both de fic i e nt a n d pre judic i a l. Stric k land v . W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). Pre judic e for ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e c la im s re lating to guilty ple a s re quire s showing “ a re a sona ble proba b ility tha t, but for c ounse l’ s e rrors, [the de fe nda nt] would not ha

ve ple a de d guilty and would ha

ve insiste d on going to tria l .” Hill v . Loc k

h art , 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985). Furthe r, be c a

use Gussne r’ s c la im wa s pre viously a djudic ate d on them e rits in sta te c ourt, to pre va il he m

u s t show tha

t the sta t e c ourt wa s unre a sona

ble in a pply ing the se princ iple s to thefa c ts of his c a se . 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(1); W illiams
v . Tay lor , 529 U.S. 362, 413 (2000). He re , it is unne c e s sa

ry to de c ide whe t

he r c ounse l’ s pe rform anc e wa s de fic ie nt be c a

use the sta

te c ourt re a sona

bly c onc lude d tha

t Gussne r c ould not show

*** The Honora

ble Ivan L.R . Le m e lle , Se nior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Ea s te rn Distric t of Louisia na , sitting by

de signa tion. 2pre

j udic e . First, Gussner fa c e d unsy m pathe tic fa c ts. He told offic e rs at the sc e ne he " m ay have ha d too m

uc h to drink," and stipula t e d tha t his blood a

lc ohol c onte nt wa s 0.16% a

t the tim e of the a c c ide nt. He a lso told offic e rs tha t he did not se e the Honda until just be fore he hit it be c a u se he ha d ta

k e n his e y e s off the roa d to se nd a te xt. Gussner a lso ha d two prior a lc ohol-re late d a rre sts a nd, in this c a se , a c hild wa s kille d
. Se c ond, Gussner ha d va

rious re a sons to quic k ly

e nte r a guilty

ple a . The prose c utor wa s inve stiga

ting thepossibility

of m urde r c ha rge s whe n Gussne r e nte re d his ple a . Additionally , Gussne r e xpre sse d tha t he wa nte d to sa ve the fam ily of the de c e a se d

c h ild furthe r pa in from

a tria l. B e fore his c ha

nge of ple a and se nte nc ing, Gussner m a de m ultiplec om

m e nts re ga

rding his de e p re m orse an d de sire to bring im

m e d iate sola c e to thefam ily . And a t his se nte nc ing, Gussner stre sse d tha

t he wa nte d to a c c e p t full re sponsibility
. For the se re a sons, thesta

te c ourt wa s not unre a sona ble in c onc luding tha

t Gussne r would not ha

ve re je c te d the ple a

de a l a nd insiste d on going to tria l e ve n ha d he be e n prope rly

a d vise d of his se nte nc e e xposure . This is so de spite

3Gussne r's de c la ration to the

c ontra ry , whic h he subm itte d to theC a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l only

a fte r the supe rior c ourt de n ie d his pe tition. 1 AFFIRM E D.

1 W e de c line to e xpa nd the c e rtific at e of a

ppe a l a bility to a d dre ss the unc e rtifie d issue s tha

t Gussne r ra ise d in his opening brie f. Se e 2 8 U.S.C . § 2253(c )(2). 4