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

Pe t i tione r - Appe l la

nt, v. V. M . ALM A GER , W arde n, C e ntine la State Prison, R e sponde nt - Appe lle e . No. 11-55390 D.C . No. 2:08-c v-01393-AB C AGR M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Audre y B . C ollins, District Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm itte d June 5, 2013 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : THOM AS, SILVERM AN a nd FISHER , C i rc uit Judge s. Fa ustino C orona

a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r dism issing his petition for a writ of ha

be a s c orpus, whic h c ha l le nge s his c onvic tion for a tte m pte d, pre m e dita te d m urde r. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 2253, a

nd we a ffirm . 

# FIL ED JUL 05 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* T his disposition is not a ppropria te for public ation a

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.C orona c onte nds tha

t his tria l c o unse l, R ic ha

rd Pinta l, provide d

ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e by fa iling to c onduc t a

n a de quate inve s tiga

tion into the

e xte nt of C orona ’ s intoxic ation a

t the tim e of the c rim e , fa i ling to a de quate ly re se a rc h the la w on the volunta

ry intoxic ation de fe nse and fa iling to pre se nt suffic ie n t e vide nc e at tria l to obtain a

jury instruc tion on volunta

ry intoxic ation. C orona ha s pre se nte d no e vide n c e e sta

blishing the

e xte nt of Pinta l’ s inve stiga tion or thesuffic ie nc y

of Pinta l’ s le ga l re se a

rc h. The ne wly

proffe re d de c la

rations from

witne sse s with inform at ion a

bout thee xte nt of C orona ’ s intoxic at ion do not e sta blish the ina d e qua c y

of the inve stiga

tion, be c a use the y do not e sta

b lish tha t Pinta l fa ile d a ltoge the r to c onta c t pe rtine nt witne sse s or obta in c om pa ra ble e vide nc e from

othe r sourc e s. W e the re fore c a nnot c onc lude tha

t the sta te c ourt’ s dism i ssa l of C orona ’ s ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l c la i m

wa s “ n e c e ssa

rily unre a sona

ble .” C ulle n v . Pinholste r , 131 S. C t. 1388, 1403 (2011); s e e also 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d). Give n the c o nside ra

ble latitude tria l c ounse l ha s in m aking ta c tic a l de c isions, se e S tric k land v . W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 689 (1984), Pinta l ’ s c hose n de fe nse strate gy – e xploiting the

vic t im s’ inc onsiste n t sta

te m e nts in hope s of c re ating re a s ona ble doubt, ra

the r tha n foc using on C orona ’ s intoxic ation – doe s not fa ll outsidethe “ wide range of re a s ona ble profe s siona l a ssista

n c e ” de e m e d a de q

uate unde r the Fifth Am e ndm e nt, s e e id . 2C orona a lso suffe re d no pre

judic e from

the a lle ge d de fic ie nt re pre se ntation be c a use the jury

is unlike ly

to ha ve found tha

t C orona la c k e d the re quisite m e nta l sta te e v e n if the a dditiona l e vide nc e ha d be e n pre se nte d. The jury he a rd am ple e vide nc e of C orona

ta king purpose ful, de libe ra te a c tions in his a tte m pt to kill his vic t im s: he c onfronte d his wife a bout a n o the r party -goe r, be at he r, pic ke d up a rifle , loa de d the rifle with a t le a st se ve n bulle ts, pointe d the rifle at his wife , pulle d the t rigge r, pointe d the rifle at his wife ’ s frie nd, pulle d the trigge r a nd ha d the pre s e nc e of m ind to le a

ve be fore the polic e arrive d. Thus, e ve n if Pinta l ha d pre s e nte d the ne w ly

proffe re d e vide nc e an d obta ine d a

jury instruc tion on volunta ry intoxic ation, the re is not a “ substa ntia l . . . like lihood of a

diffe re nt re sult.” P inholste r , 131 S. C t. at 1403 (inte rna l quota tion m a rks om itte d) (quoting Harrington v. Ric hte r , 131 S. C t. 770, 791 (2011)). AFFIRM E D .

3