T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y f i nds thi s c a s e s ui t abl e f

orde c i s i on w i thout * * oral ar gu m ent . F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2).

T he H onor abl e D a ni e l M . F r i e dm a n, U ni t e d S t a t e s C i r c ui tJ udge f or *** th e F e d e r a l C ir c u it, s ittin g b y d e s ig n a tio n . NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J E S S E B ON I L L A, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. D . G . A D A M S, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 07- 55626 D . C . N o. C V -06-07 40 5-R ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia M a nue l L . R e a l , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng R e s ubm i tt e d M a r c h 10, 2011 ** P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: F R IE D M A N , D . W . N E L S O N an d R E IN H A R D T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. **** 

# FI LED MA R 24 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

B o n illaap p e a ls th e D is tr ic t C o u r t’s d e n ia l o f h is p e titio n f

o rh ab e a s c o rp u s . He wa s c o n v i c t e d o f

a rm e d r o b b e ry a n d p o s s e s s i o n o f a f i r e a rm b y a f

e l o n . He c o n te n d s th a t th e r e w a s in s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e to s u p p o r t th e g a n g e n h a n c e m e n ts to h is s e n te n c e p u r s u a n t to C a l. P e n a l C o d e § 1 8 6 .2 2 ( b ) . Se e J a c k s o n v . V ir g in ia , 443 U . S . 30 7, 31 6, 31 9 (19 79 ). A ga ng e nha nc e m e ntunde rC a l . P e na l C ode § 186. 22( b) r e qui r e s the p r o s e c u tio n to p r o v e tw o s e p a r a te a n d d is tin c t e le m e n ts b e y o n d a r e a s o n ab le d o u b t: fi rs t , thatthe defendantcom m i tt ed a f el on y “ for the benefi tof, atthe di re ct i on of, ori n a s s oc i a t i on w i th [ a ] c r i m i na l s tr e e tga ng” ; a nd s e c ond, tha tthe de f e nda nt c o m m itte d th e c r im e “w ith th e s p e c if ic in te n t to p r o m o te , f

u r th e r , o ra s s is t” in c r im in a l c o n d u c t b y g a n g m e m b e r s . C a l. P e n a l C o d e § 1 8 6 .2 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) . B o n illa c ont e nds tha tthe e vi de nc e tha tthe pr os e c ut i on pr e s e nt e d – t e s t i m ony tha the com m i tt ed a r ob beryw i th tw o o ther gang m em bers and exp ertt es t i m on y that ex p l ai n ed i n h yp o th et i cal t erm s h o w su ch o ffen ses co u l d b e u sefu l t o th e g an g as a w h o le –w a s in s u f

f ic ie n t to e s tab lis h th e s e c o n d e le m e n t. T h e o u t co m e i s g o v ern ed b y P e opl e v . A lbi l lar , 51 C al . 4th 4 7 (20 10 ), de c i de d a f

t e rw e he a r d or a l a r gum e nt . I n A lbi l lar , the C al i forni a S up re m e C ou rt e xpr e s s l y r e

j e c t e d B ri ce no v. Scri bn er , 55 5 F . 3d 10 69 (9th C i r. 20 09 ), i n w hi ch thi s c ou rthad h el d thatevi dence thata gang m em ber’ s c om m i ss i on of arm ed3

robb er i es w i th ano ther gang m em ber, com bi ned w i th t es t i m on y f rom a gang exp ert e x p la in in g in h y p o th e tic a l te rm s h o w th o s e a c ts c o u ld a d v a n ta g e th e g a n g , s e e i d. a t1073- 74, w hi l e us e f

ul f orde t e rm i ni ng the f

i r s te l e m e ntof

the ga ng e nha nc e m e nt s t a tut e , “ s a [ i d] nothi ng about[ the de f e nda nt ’ s ] s pe c i f

i c i nt e nti n c om m i tt i ng the robb er i es . ” I

d. at10 79 (e m ph as i s om i tt ed). T he A lbi l larcourtspec i fi ca l l y r ej ec t ed o u rc o n c lu s io n th a t e x p e r t te s tim o n y “d e a l[ in g ] a lm o s t e x c lu s iv e ly w ith hy pothe t i c a l s [ doe s ] notpr ovi de a ny di r e c torc i r c um s t a nt i a l e vi de nc e of [ the defe nd ant ’ s] ow n i nt ent . ” I d. a t 1 0 7 8 - 7 9 ; s e e al

s o A lbi l lar , 51 C a l . 4th a t68 ( hol di ng tha t“ i f

s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e e s t abl i s he s tha tthe de f e nda nti nt e nde d t o a nd d id c o m m it th e c h a r g e d f e lo n y w ith k n o w n m e m b e r s o f a g a n g , th e ju ry m a y f

a ir ly i n fer th atth e d efen d an th ad th e sp eci fi c i n t en tt o p ro m o t e, fu rth er, o r assi st cr i m i nal cond uctby tho se gang m em bers ”) . A lb i l la r is b in d in g o n th is co u rt in fe d er al h ab ea s c as es : “ a s tate co u rt’s i nt erpret at i on of st at e l aw . . . bi nd s afe dera l courtsi tt i ng i n h abea s c orpu s. ” B radsha w v. R i chey , 546 U . S . 74, 76 ( 2005) . W e a r e r e qui r e d t o f ol l ow i nt e rve ni ng de c i s i ons of the C a l i f

orni a S upr e m e C our ttha ti nt e rpr e ts t a t e l a w i n a w a y th a t c o n tr a d ic ts o u re a r lie rin te rp r e ta tio n o f th a t la w . R ot ec Indu stri es , Inc. v. Mi t s ubis hiC or

p. , 34 8 F . 3d 11 16 , 11 22 n. 3 (9th C i r. 20 03 ). T he A lb i l la r co u rt’s det erm i nat i on thatthe evi dence i n thatca se sa t i sf i ed the spec i fi c i nt entel em entof a4

gang enhancem entfi nd i ng com pel s us t o con cl ud e thatthe di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr i n d et erm i ni ng thatB on i l l a w as no tent i t l ed t o rel i ef on the grou nd of i nsuffi ci ency of the evi dence. B oni l l a ’ s s e c ond c ont e nt i on – tha thi s tr i a l c ouns e l r e nde r e d i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e by f

a i l i ng t o obj e c tt o e xpe r tt e s t i m ony c onc e rni ng the ga ng enhancem ental l egat i on – al so fa i l s. B on i l l a does notshow thatthe evi dence that h e c o n te n d s c o u n s e l s h o u ld h a v e o b je c te d to w a s in a d m is s ib le . See Stri cklan d v. W as hi ngton , 466 U . S . 668 ( 1984) . A c c or di ngl y , the de ni a l of the w r i ti s a f

f i rm e d.

AF F I RME D.