N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
R OB ER T GONZALEZ, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt,
v. C HARLES L. R

YAN, ** Dire c tor of ADOC ; e t a l., R

e sponde nt s - Appe lle e s . No. 12-16607 D.C . No. 4:08-c v-00658-FR Z
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Frank R . Za

pata , Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 4, 2013 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : HAWKINS, GOULD, a nd PAEZ, C irc uit Judge s. Pe titione r R obe rt Gonz a le z a ppe a ls thedistric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his ha be a s pe tition under 28 U.S.C . § 2254. In se pa rat e tria l s, Gonz a l e z wa s c onvic te d of two 

# FIL ED
JAN 03 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public ation a

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** C ha rle s L. R y an is substitute d for his pre de c e ssor, Dora B . Sc hriro, a s Dire c t or of the Ariz ona

De pa rtm e nt of C orre c tions, pursua nt to Fe d. R . App. P. 43(c )(2).c ounts of a

tte m pte d first de gre e m

urde r for shootings on Nove m be r 3, 2001 (“ the first tria l” or “ Hum o shooting” ), a nd Nove m

be r 19, 2001 (“ the se c o nd tria l” or

“ Le wis shooting” ), a long with othe r c rim e s. W e have jurisdic t ion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 2253, a

nd we a ffirm
. W e re vie w de novo thedistric t c ourt's de c ision to deny the pe tition. Lambe rt v . Blodge tt , 393 F.3d 943, 964 (9th C ir. 2004). Gonz a le z ’ s pe tition is gove rne d by the Antite rrorism

and Effe c t ive De ath Pe na lty Ac t of 1996 (“ AEDPA” ), Pub. L. No. 104–132, 110 Sta t. 1214. Gonz a le z m

ust the re fore show that the la st re a sone d Ariz ona sta te c ourt de c ision wa s “ c ontra ry to, or involve d a

n unre a s ona

ble a p plic ation of, c le arly

e sta blishe d Fe de ra l la

w, a s de te rm ine d by

the Supre m e C ourt of theUnite d State s ,” or wa s “ a n unre a s ona

ble de t e rm inat ion of the fa c t s in light of the

e vide nc e pre se nte d in theState c ourt proc e e ding.” 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d). 1. The distric t c ourt c o rre c tly de te rm ine d tha

t a n unc onstitutiona

l jury instruc tion on pre m e d i tation in e a c h of Gonz a le z ’ s tria ls wa s ha rm le ss. 1 C onstitutiona

l tria l e rrors provide grounds for ha be a s re lie f only

if the e rror “ ha d substa ntia l a nd injurious e ffe c t or influe nc e in de te rm ining thejury 's ve rdic t.”

1 The pa rtie s do not dispute

tha t the jury instruc tion, whic h sta te d tha t “proof of a c tua l re fle c tion is not re quire d” to e sta blish a tte m pte d first de gre e m

urde r, wa s unc onstitutiona

l. 2Bre c ht v . Abrahamson , 507 U.S. 619, 637-38 (1993). The re c ord for e a c h tria l
c onta ins e xte nsive e vide nc e tha t Gonz a le z re fle c te d

be fore c om

m i tting the shootings. In the

first tria l, the e vide nc e showe d tha t Gonz a le z pa

rke d his c ar outsideHum o’ s a

pa rtm e nt on Nove m

be r 2, 2001, a

nd initia te d a c onve rsation with Hum o whileholding a

gun in plain sight. During the e nsuing c onve rsation, whic h la ste d se ve ra l m inute s, Gonz a le z c onside re d le aving but c hose inste a d to e nga ge in
ve rba l posturing with Hum o tha t le d to theshooting. H um o ne v e r phy sic a lly
e nga ge d Gonz a le z and atte m pte d to re tre at a s Gonz a le z re pe ate dly shot him . In the
se c o nd tria l, the e vide nc e showe d tha t Gonz a le z purc ha se d

a fully a utom atic M a c 11 ha ndgun a fte r le arning the re wa s a warrant out for his a rre st. W he n Offic e r C ha rle s B lue atte m

p te d to e xe c ute the wa

rrant, Gonz a le z pulle d out his we a pon, be ga n to run, a

nd the n fire d m

ultiple shots a

t a se c ond offic e r who ha d pulle d his truc k in front of Gonz a le z . Gonz a l e z a l so te stifie d a s to his de c ision to shoot a t the
se c o nd offic e r inste a d o f Offic e r B lue give n his a sse ssm e nt of the situa tion. 2 In light of the

e vide nc e of re fle c tion in e a c h tria l, the e rrone ous jury instruc tion did not ha

ve a “ substa ntia l a n d injurious e ffe c t” on the jury ’ s ve rdic t. Se eid. at 637-38.

2 Whe the r Gonz a le z be l ie ve d the se offic e rs we re polic e or c i vilia ns is irre le va nt to the que stion of whe the r the re wa s e vide n c e of a c tua l re fle c tion. 32. Gonz a le z ’ s c la im tha t the first tria l c ourt e rre d by a d m itting two nine
m illim e te r she ll c a sings doe s not wa rrant re lie f. Eve n if the re wa s e vide ntia ry e rror, it did not rise

to thele ve l of c onstitutiona l e rror be c a

use it did not affe c t the

“ funda m e nta l fa i rne ss” of the tria l. Se eHay e s v . Ay e rs , 632 F.3d 500, 515 (9th C ir. 2011) (interna l quota t ions a nd c ita tions omitte d). The Stat e did not re ly upon this e vide nc e and, in fa c t, disa vowe d it in c losing rebutta l . The State ’ s c a se wa s not built upon ba

llistic s , but upon thre e se pa rate e y e -witne ss a c c ounts a nd positive ide ntific ations of Gonz a le z an d of the c ar he wa s using the night of the

Hum o shooting. 3. Gonz a le z ’ s c la im

tha t the tria l c ourt’ s pre c lusion of im pe a c hm e nt e vide nc e de prive d him

of his DueProc e ss a

nd C onfronta

tion C la use rights is without m

e rit. The tria l c ourt prope rly

e xc lude d: (1) Hum o’ s outsta nding mi sde m e anor wa

rrants be c a use , c ontra

ry to Gonz a le z ’ s a lle gations, there wa s no e vide nc e tha t he te stifie d in e x c ha nge for a non-prose c ut ion a gre e m e nt; (2) pic ture s of Hum o’ s body tattoos be c a use Gonz a le z fa ile d to pre se nt a ny e vide n c e e sta

blishing the ir re l e va

nc e to the tria l ; (3) Hum o’ s spe c ific prior c onvic tions for violent c rim e s be c a u s e Hum o’ s viole nt prope nsity

wa s not a

t issue , a nd; (4) Hum o’ s shoplifting c o nvic tion be c a use it wa s not suffic ie nt ly

probative of his c re dibility , se eUnite d State s v . Orte ga , 561 F.2d 803, 806 (9th C ir. 1977). Gonz a l e zha s not e s ta blishe d tha

t a ny of the tria l 4c ourt’ s rulings were c ontra ry to or a n unre a sona

ble a pplic ation of c le a

rly
e sta blishe d Supre m e C ourt pre c e de nt. 4. Gonz a le z ’ s c la im

tha t the tria l c ourt viola

te d his dueproc e ss rights by im prope rly shifting the

burde n of proof for se lf de fe nse away from the State in his
se c o nd tria l fa ils be c a

use this wa s c o nsiste nt with Ariz ona la w at the tim e of the tria l
. Se e Ariz . R e v. Stat. § 13-205 (1997). “ The re troa c t ivity of a sta te c ha nge of la w is a sta te que stion a

nd the fe de ra l C onstitution ha s no voic e upon thesubje c t.” La Rue v . Mc C

arthy , 833 F.2d 140, 142 (9th C i r. 1987) (inte rna l quota tions a nd
c ita tions omitte d). The Ariz ona Supre m e C ourt e s ta

blishe d tha

t the 2006 le gisla tive am e ndm e nts c h anging se lf de fe nse to a n a ffirm ative de fe nse an d shifting the

burde n of proof to theState are not re troa c t ive
. Garc ia v . Browning , 151 P.3d 533, 537 (Ariz . 2007), ov e rturne d by State v . Monte s , 245 P.3d 879 (Ariz
. 2011) (a pproving validity

of se pa rate le gisla

tion e s ta blishing re troa c tivity

of the 2006 a m e ndm e nts for c rim e s c om m itte d be fore the am e n dm e nts but first subm itte d to a trie r of fa c t a fte r the am e n d m e nts). The2006 a

m e ndm e nts do not a

pply to Gonz a le z be c a

u s e the jury he a

rd his c a se in 2002. Gonz a le z ’ s a lte rnate argum e nt that Ariz ona ’ s la

w at the tim e of his trial wa s unc o nstitutiona l fa ils be c a

use sta te s do not viola

te the C onstitution if the

y pla c e the burde n of proof for se lf de fe nse on the d e fe nda

nt. Martin v . Ohio , 480 U.S. 228, 235-36 (1987). 55. Gonz a le z ’ s c la im tha t the re wa s insuffic ie nt e vide nc e to c o nvic t him in his
se c o nd tria l for atte m

pte d first de gre e m

urde r, a ggravate d a ssa

ult, a nd disorde rly
c onduc t on a

polic e offic e r is without m e rit. “ [A] fe de ra l ha

be a s c orpus c ourt fa c e d with a re c ord of historic a l fa c ts tha t supports c onflic ting infe re nc e s m ust pre s um e
— e ve n if it doe s not a ffirm ative ly a ppe a r in the re c o rd—

that the trie r of fa c t re s olve d a

ny suc h c onflic ts in fa

vor of the prose c ution, a

nd m ust de fe r to tha

t
re solution.” J

a c k son v . Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 326 (1979). Afte r AEDPA, this
c ourt m ust a p ply the J ac k son sta nda rd “ with a n a dditional la

y e r of de fe re nc e .” J uan H. v . Alle n , 408 F.3d 1262, 1274 (9th C ir. 2005). The following e vide nc e supports Gonz a le z ’ s c onvic t ion for theLe wis shooting: (1) Gonz a le z kne wthe re wa s a wa rrant out for his a

rre s t a nd the re fore would ha ve be e n e xpe c ting thepolic e to a tte m pt a n a rre st; (2) B lue te stifie d tha t he y e lle d “ Tuc son Polic e ,” and “ ge t on the ground,” whe n he first c onfronte d Gonz a le z ; (3) Gonz a l e z looke d stra ight a t B lue , m a de e y e c onta c t

with him , a

nd le t out a sigh be fore pulling out a

gun a nd running; (4) B l ue wa s we aring a ve st tha t indic ate d he wa s a

la w e n forc e m e nt offic e r; (5) Le wis ha d not dra wn a we a pon,
and did not ha

v e a we a pon tha t wa s visibleto Gonz a le z , whe n Gonz a le z be ga n to shoot a t him ; (6) Gonz a le z ’ s shots na rrowly m isse d Le wis, a

nd; (7) Gonz a le z ha d purc ha se d the M a c -11 ha ndgun a fte r the Hum o shooting a nd within a

we e k of the 6Le wis shooting. This e vide n c e is m o re tha

n suffic ie nt unde r the dua l J ac k son / AEDPA sta

nda rds to support Gonz a le z ’ s c onvic tion in his se c o nd tria l. 6. Gonz a le z ’ s c la im

tha t his c onstitutiona

l rights were viola

te d be c a use B lue de stroy e d e xc ulpa

tory e vide nc e by m oving his vehic le be fore de te c tive s c ould
c om ple t e the ir inve stiga

t ion of theLe wis shooting fa ils be c a use Gonz a l e z ha s not
e sta blishe d tha

t B l ue a c te d in ba d fa ith. S e eArizona v . Youngblood , 488 U.S. 51, 58 (1988) (“ [U] n le ss a

c rim ina l de fe nda

nt c an show ba d fa ith on thepa rt of the polic e , fa ilure to pre se rve pote ntia lly use ful e vide nc e doe s not c onstitute a de nia l of due proc e ss of la

w.” ). On a

p pe a l, Gonz a le z m ake s no c ohe re nt a rgum e nt tha

t B lue a c te d in ba d fa ith. Furthe r, othe r e vide nc e e sta blishe d the loc ation of B lue ’ s c ar be fore the shooting. Se e C alifornia v. Trombe tta , 467 U.S. 479, 489 (1984). 7. The thre e c la i m s of prose c utoria l m isc onduc t tha t Gonz a le zdid not proc e d ura lly de fa

ult fa i l be c a

use , e ve n if the re wa s m isc onduc t, it did not rise to the l e ve l of a

c onstitutiona

l viola tion. Se ePark

e r v . Matthe w

s , 132 S. C t. 2148, 2153 (2012). Whe re a sta t e c ourt ha s rule d on them e rits of a prose c utoria l
m isc o nduc t c la im , we m

ust a pply AEDPA de fe re nc e in our a na ly sis. Id. First, thesta

te a p p e lla te c ourt re a sona

bly de t e rm i ne d tha

t the prose c ution foc u se d on Gonz a le z ’ s c re dibility whe n it m a de re fe re nc e to the Hum o shooting during c losing a

rgum e nt a t the se c ond tria l. Se c ond, Gonz a le z c onte n ds tha t the
7prose c utor viola te d the attorne y -c lie nt privile ge and Gonz a l e z ’ s right to c ounse l by im pe rm issibly sta

ting tha t Gonz a le z surprise d his own c ounse l whe n he c onc oc te d
a story just be fore ta

king thesta

nd. This a

rgum e nt fa ils be c a

use the sta

te c ourt of
a ppe a ls re a sona

bly de te rm ine d

tha t the prose c utor’ s re m arks we re prope r re butta l in re sponse to Gonz a le z ’ s c l osing a rgum e nt. La s t, the prose c utor’ s c om m e nt tha t B lue m ove d

his ve hic le from

the Nove m

b e r 19 shooting sc e n e be c a use “ he ne e de d to do som e thing”at the house ne ar the Le wis shooting sc e ne wa s prope r be c a use the d ispute d c om

m e nt did not give

rise to theinfe re nc e tha

t Gonz a le z wa s
a pproa c h ing thehouse to e n ga g e in c rim ina l a c tivity
. 8. The thre e ine ffe c t ive a ssista nc e of c ounse l c l a im s tha t Gonz a le z did not proc e d ura lly de fa

ult fa i l unde r the double -de fe re n c e sta nda rd we a p ply whe n
a sse ssing ine ffe c tive a ssista n c e of c ounse l c l a im s a fte r AEDPA. Unde r Stric k land
v . W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 688, 692 (1984), Gonz a le z m ust e sta b lish both tha

t
c ounse l’ s pe rform an c e “ fe ll be low a n obje c tive sta

n da rd of re a sona

ble n e s s” ba se d on the “pre va iling profe ssiona l norm s,” and tha t suc h e rror wa s pre

judic ia l. Unde r AEDPA, “ [a ] sta

te c ourt's de te rm ination tha t a c la im la c ks m e rit pre c lude s fe de ra l ha be a s re lie f so long a s fa irm i n de d jurists c ould disagre e on the c orre c tne ss of the sta te c o urt's de c ision.” Harrington v. Ric hte r , 131 S. C t. 770, 786 (2011) (inte rna l quota t ions a nd c i t ations omitte d ). 8Gonz a le z ’ s first c la im

— that his c ounse l wa s ine ffe c tive in his first tria l for fa iling to make an obje c tion whe n the State a dm itte d a m ug shot of Gonz a le z ta

ke n
around thetim e of the shootings— is without me rit be c a

use the photogra

ph wa s
a dm issibleto a id a

n e y e witne ss to thec rim e in ide ntify ing Gonz a le z , whose phy sic a l a ppe aranc e ha d c h ange d c onside ra bly be twe e n the shooting a

nd the tria l. Gonz a le z ’ s se c ond c la i m

— t hat his c ounse l wa s ine ffe c tive in his first tria l for fa iling to obta

in a ba l listic s e xpe rt to c ounte r the State ’ s e xpe rt te stim ony a s to the nine m illim e te r she ll c a sings—is without me rit be c a use Gonz a le z ha s not
e sta blishe d pre

j udic e . Gonz a l e z ’ s third c la im

— t hat his c ounse l in his first tria l fa ile d to obje c t to theState ’ s c losing a rgum e nt— sim ila

rly fa ils be c a

use Gonz a le z doe s not e sta

blish tha t a ny c om m e nt a ffe c te d the outc om e of the tria l
. 9. Gonz a le z ’ s c la im s tha t his c onstitutiona

l rights were viola

te d during
se nte nc ing a

re without me rit. Gonz a le z doe s not c ite to a ny Supre m e C ourt
a uthority se tting forth a

c onstitutiona

l right to a

n individualiz e d se nte nc ing de te rm i nation in non-c a

pita l c a s e s. Furthe r, his a rgum e nt on dire c t a

ppe a l wa s e xc lusive ly

foc use d on Ariz ona ’ s se nte nc ing la ws, not fe de ra l la

ws. His c la im

is thus not c ogniz a

b le on ha b e a s re vie w. Se e 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d); Dunc an v . He nry , 513 U.S. 364, 365-66 (1995).

9Gonz a le z ’ s c la im tha t the tria l c ourt viola

te d A ppre ndi v
. N

e w J e rse y , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), a

nd Blak e ly v . W ashington , 542 U.S. 296 (2004), in a p ply ing
a ggrav at ing fa c tors to a

rrive at c onse c utive e ighte e n-y e ar se nte n c e s fa i ls be c a use Gonz a le z ’ s a dm i ssion tha t he ha d a prior fe lony

inc re a se d his se nte nc ing ra nge for
e a c h c rim e and pla c e d the se nte nc e s within tha t ra nge . Se e Appre ndi , 530 U.S. a t 490 (e sta blishing tha

t “[o] the r than the

fac t of a prior c onv ic t ion, any fa c t tha t inc re a se s the pe na l ty

for a c rim e be y ond thepre sc ribe d sta tutory m axim um m ust be subm itte d to a

jury , a nd prove d be y ond a

re a sona ble doubt” (e m

pha sis a dde d)). The re fore , the tria l c ourt c ould m ake findings on aggrav ating c irc um s ta nc e s to inc re a se the se nte n c e within tha t ra nge . Se eid. 10. The distric t c ourt c o rre c tly rule d tha t Gonz a le z proc e dura lly

de fa ulte d his
re m a ining c la im s be c a

use he did not fai rly

pre s e nt the m

in sta te c ourt. Se e Baldw in v . Re e

se , 541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004). Gonza le z fa ile d to e xha ust the following c la im s, in whole o r in pa rt, be c a use he did not raise the m

be fore the sta

te
c ourts: six 3 (two of thethre e im pe rm issible -pre c lusion-of-witne sse s c l a im s), se ve n, e ight, fifte e n (six of the n i ne prose c utoria l m isc onduc t c la im s), sixte e n (twe lve of the fifte e n

ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l c la im s), a

nd se ve nte e n (ine ffe c tive

3 B e c a use Gonz a le z puts forwa

rd e ighte e n se pa

rate c l a im s for re lie f, m any with m ultiplesub-pa

rts, we do not re fe r to the substa n c e of e a c h c la im . Inste a d, we re ta in the num

be ring tha

t G o nz a le z use d in his brie fs be fore this c ourt.

1 0a ssista

nc e of c ounse l c la im s re late d to se nte nc ing). Gonz a le z a lso fa i le d to fa irly pre s e nt c l a im s two, thre e , nine , a nd e le ve n in sta

te c o urt be c a

use he did not provide
a grounds for re lie f unde r fe de ra l la w. Se e Dunc an , 513 U.S. a t 365-66. No e xc e ption a

pplie s tha t would a l low him

to proc e e d with his proc e dura lly de fa ulte d c la im s. Furthe r, the distric t c ourt did not err whe n it re fuse d to sta y the proc e e dings to al l ow Gonz a le z to re t urn to sta t e c o urt to e xha

ust his c la im s. B e c a use the m e rits of Gonz a le z ’ s c la im s we re no longe r re vie wa ble in theAriz ona c ourts, se e Ariz . R . C rim . Proc . 32.2(a )(3), 32.4, thec la im s we re te c hnic a lly
e xha uste d but proc e dura lly de fa ulte d. The distric t c ourt thus c orre c tly de te rm ine d that the re wa s no ba sis for sta y i ng Gonz a l e z ’ s pe tition. Se eC ole man v . Thompson , 501 U.S. 722, 735 n.1 (1991). 11. In c onc lusion, wefind no re ve rsible e rror in the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of Gonz a le z ’ s ha

b e a s pe tition under 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d). AFFIRM E D.

1 1