NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT BEN N Y W I LLI A M S, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. J . WAL KE R ; J E R R Y B R OWN; J AY W A LK ER, R esp o n d en t s - A p p el l ees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) N o. 09- 57060 D . C . N o . 3 : 0 7 -cv -0 0 9 5 9 -B T M -A JB

ME MO R A N D U M*

A p p e a l f r o m th e U n ite d S ta te s D is tr ic t C o u rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia B a rry T e d M os kow i t z , U . S . D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r1, 2011

P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia Be f o r e : SCH RO ED ER a n d G O U LD , Ci r c u i tJ u d g e s , a n d N A V A RRO , * * U . S. D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng. P e t i t i one r - A ppe l l a ntB e nny W i l l i a m s c ha l l e nge s the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de ni a l of hi s pe t i t i on f

oraw r i tof

habe a s c orpus pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 2254. W e ha ve ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § § 1 2 9 1 a n d 2 2 5 3 , a n d w e a f f irm . W illia m s ’ p e titio n w a s tim e ly u n d e rth e A E D P A . A lth o u g h th e C a lif o rn ia 

# FI LED DE C 08 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS1 T he r e w a s one 64- da y pe r i od tha te l aps e d be tw e e n the de ni a l by the c ourtof

appe a l on M a y 24, 2006 a nd W i l l i a m s ’ f i l i ng i n the C a l i f

orni aS upr e m e C ourton J une 27, 2006. H ow e ve r , the a ddi t i ona l 4 da y s i s notas i gni f i c a ntde l a y t o w a rr a nt a d et erm i n at i o n o f u n t i m el i n ess. S upr e m e C ourtde ni e d hi s pe t i t i on w i th ac i t a t i on t o In re C la rk , 5 C a l . 4th 750 ( 1993) , thi s a l one i s notas uf f i c i e nti ndi c a t i on tha tthe c ourt ’ s c i t a t i on t o C lark w as m e a ntt o i nf

e rtha tthe pe t i t i on w a s f ound t o be unt i m e l y be c aus e the r e w a s no spec i fi c pi np oi ntci t at i on . T he C l ark o pi ni on i s l engthy and al so addres se s procedural bars agai nstpi ec em ea l pres ent at i on of cl ai m s, “ abuse of the w ri t , ” a s w e ll a s r e p r e s e n ta tio n o f c la im s th a t w e r e p r e v io u s ly r e s o lv e d o n d ir e c t ap p e a l. In re C la rk , 5 C al . 4th at76 4– 82 . A cc ordi ng l y, i ti s uncl ear w hy the st at e c ou rt d e n ie d th e p e titio n a n d th e f e d e r a l c o u rt m u s t c o n d u c t a n in d e p e n d e n t in q u iry to det erm i ne i f the st at e habeas pet i t i on w as fi l ed w i thi n a “ re as on abl e t i m e. ” E vans v. Ch a v is , 54 6 U . S . 18 9, 19 8 (20 06 ). F i nd i ng thatal l bu ton e t i m e per i od betw ee n the dat e W i l l i am s’ conv i ct i on beca m e f i nal and each subsequentroun d o f habeas r e vi e w f i tw i thi n the 60- da y pe r i od c ons i de r e d t i m e l y by the S upr e m e C ourt , the d i stri ctco u rth el d th atW i l l i am s’ p et i t i o n w as t i m el y. W e a g r e e a n d a f f irm . 1 H o w e v e r , W illia m s d o e s ap p e a rto h a v e p r o c e d u r a lly d e f au lte d o n h is f

o u rth throu gh ei gh th cl ai m s. A bsentshow i ng s of “ cause” and “ prej ud i ce , ” f eder al h ab eas rel i ef i s u n av ai l ab l e w h en “ a st at e co u rt[h as] d ecl i n ed t o ad d ress a pri soner’ s f

eder al cl ai m s bec ause the pri soner had fai l ed t o m ee ta s t at e procedural r e q u ir e m e n t,” a n d “th e s ta te ju d g m e n t r e s ts o n in d e p e n d e n t a n d a d e q u a te s ta te procedural grou nd s. ” C ole m an v . T hom ps on , 501 U . S . 722, 729–30 ( 1991) . T he C a lif o rn iaS u p r e m e C o u rt d e n ie d W illia m s ’ c la im s f o u rth r o u g h e ig h t w ith c i t a t i ons t o In re C la rk , 5 C a l . 4th 750 ( 1993) a nd I n r e R obbi ns , 18 C a l . 4th 770 ( 1998) . “ A s um m a ry de ni a l c i t i ng C lark a nd R o b b i n s m e a n s th a t th e p e titio n isre

j ec t ed as un t i m el y. ” W

a lke rv . M

a r tin , 13 1 S . C t . 11 20 , 11 26 (201 1). T he deni al of habe a s r e l i e f

by the C a l i f

orni aS upr e m e C ourton the gr ound tha tthe appl i c a t i on for r el i ef w as fi l ed un t i m el y i s an i nd ependentand adequ at e s t at e procedural g r o u n d r e q u ir in g d e n ia l o f s u b s e q u e n t h ab e a s p e titio n s in f e d e r a l c o u rt. I

d. W i l l i am s has no tdem on stra t ed “ cause” and “ prej ud i ce ” a s are sul tof the al l eged v io la tio n o f

f e d e r a l la w o rd e m o n s tr a te d th a t f a ilu r e to c o n s id e rth e c la im s w ill r e s u lt in af

u n d a m e n ta l m is c a rr ia g e o f ju s tic e . T urni ng t o the m er i t s of W i l l i am s’ cl ai m s, W i l l i am s f i rs tar gu es that al l o w i n g ev i d en ce o f each ch arg ed ro b b ery an d o n e p ri o r ro b b ery t o b e cro ssad m i ssi b l e t o p ro v e i d en t i ty u n d er C al i fo rn i a E v i d en ce C o d e § 1 1 0 1 w as a vi ol a t i on of

due pr oc e s s . T he s t a t e c ourtga ve al i m i t i ng i ns truc t i on, di r e c t i ng the j ury nott o dr a w i m pr ope ri nf e r e nc e s f r om the e vi de nc e . W e m us tpr e s um e tha tthe ju ry f o llo w e d th e in s tru c tio n s a n d d r e w o n ly ap e rm is s ib le in f e r e n c e . B oyde v. Br o wn , 4 0 4 F .3 d 1 1 5 9 , 1 1 7 2 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). W e f in d th at th e s tate co u rt’s de t e rm i na t i on tha tthe § 1101 i ns truc t i on di d notvi ol a t e due pr oc e s s w a s not contraryt o o r an u nrea sonabl e app l i ca t i on of cl earl y e st abl i shed S up re m e C ou rt p r e c e d e n t. See A lberniv. McD an i el , 4 5 8 F .3 d 8 6 0 , 8 6 6

– 6 7 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . W i l l i am s nextar gu es thathe w as no taf forded du e proces s bec ause he w as notgi ve n a de qua t e not i c e of the f a c t s tha tw oul d be us e d t o pr ove hi s pr i or conv i ct i on . D ue process re qu i re s thata def endantbe gi ven adequ at e not i ce of w hat h e o rs h e h a s to d e f

e n d a g a in s t. G r ay v . N

e the r land , 5 1 8 U .S . 1 5 2 , 1 6 7 ( 1 9 9 6 ) ; In r e R u ffa lo , 390 U . S . 544 ( 1968) . W i l l i a m s w a s pr ope r l y not i f i e d tha tthe prosec ut i on w ou l d u se hi s pri or 19 78 conv i ct i on of a vi ol at i on of C al i forni a P enal C o d e § 2 4 5 ( a ) a s as tr ik e p r io ru n d e rC a lif o rn iala w . See Ja m es v. B o rg , 24 F . 3d20 , 24 (9th C i r. 19 94 ). W i l l i am s has no ri gh tt o b e not i fi ed of w ha t ev i dence the p r o s e c u tio n w ill u s e to p r o v e ap r io rc o n v ic tio n . G r ay , 518 U . S . a t167–168. F i na l l y , W i l l i a m s a r gue s tha tthe r e w a s avi ol a t i on of the c ontr a c tc l aus e of the U ni t ed S t at es C on st i tut i on because he e nt er ed i nt o p l eaagre em ent s that di s m i s s e d the c ount s of

f i r e a rm us e . T he l e ga l obl i ga t i ons of the 1974 a nd 1978 pl eaagre em ent s app ear t o b e f ul fi l l ed. T here w er e no p rom i se s i n ei ther pl ea agre em entre gardi ng the use of the conv i ct i on s f or pu rposes of enhanced s e nt e nc i ng i n the f

utur e . T he tr i a l c ourtpr ope r l y appl i e d the l a w i n e xi s t e nc e a tthe t i m e of the ne w of

f e ns e t o s e nt e nc e the de f e nda nt , i nc l udi ng the de t e rm i na t i on of the e f f e c tof the pr i orof

f e ns e on hi s s e nt e nc e f

orthe ne w c r i m e , w i thoutvi ol a t i ng th e c o n tr a c t c lau s e . P e ople v . G i ps on , 11 7 C al . A pp . 4th 1 06 5, 10 70 (200 4). E ve n i f W i l l i a m s ha s notpr oc e dur a l l y de f aul t e d on c l a i m s f

ourthr ough e ig h t, th e s e c la im s a ls o la c km e r it. W i l l i a m s ’ f

ourth c l a i m f

orr e l i e f a l l e ge s tha tdua l us e of the pr i or c o n v ic tio n s b y th e tr ia l c o u rt to im p o s e th r e e c o n s e c u tiv e f iv e - y e a re n h a n c e m e n ts f o re a c h o f

h is th r e e p r io rc o n v ic tio n s a n d th e n to im p o s e a n in d e te rm in a te se nt ence un der C al i forni a’ s T hree S tri kes l aw w as i m prop er . C al i forni a l aw has s p e c if ic a lly u p h e ld th e p r o p r ie ty o f s u c h as e n te n c in g s c h e m e . P e o p le v . P u r a ta , 42 C a l . A pp. 4th 489, 498 ( 1996) . C ons e que nt l y , W i l l i a m s f a i l s t o c i t e aba s i s f

or f e d e r a l h ab e a s r e lie f

. Estel le v. McG u i re , 50 2 U . S . 62 , 67 –6 8 (19 91 ). W i l l i am s’ cl ai m for i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l fa i l s bec ause every is s u e th a t W illia m s a r g u e s h is ap p e lla te c o u n s e l s h o u ld h a v e r a is e d la c k s m e r it. T he r e f or e , W i l l i a m s ha s nots how n tha thi s c ouns e l w a s notf unc t i oni ng a s the

‘ coun se l ’ gu ar ant ee d b y th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t. Str i c kland v . W as hi ngton , 46 6 U . S . 66 8, 68 7 (19 84 ).W i l l i a m s a r gue s i n hi s s i xth c l a i m f orr e l i e f tha tthe 1996 O r e gon f e l ony c onvi c t i on c a nnotbe us e d a s as tr i ke unde rC a l i f orni al a w be c aus e the e l e m e nt s of the O re go n cri m e do n otcont ai n al l the el em ent s of asi m i l aroffe nse und er C a l i f orni al a w . I f

the c onduc tof

the pr i orc r i m e s a t i s f

i e s the e l e m e nt s of

a“ s e r i ous f e lo n y ” th e n it is p r o p e r ly c la s s if ie d a s as tr ik e . See P eo

p le v. M yers , 5 C a l.4 th 1193, 1200–01 ( 1993) . T he f a c t s f r om the O r e gon c onvi c t i on c oul d l e a d a ny ra t i on al tri erof fa ctt o con cl ud e thatal l the el em ent s of ase ri ou s f el on y und er C a lif o rn iala w w e r e s a tis f

ie d b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le d o u b t. Se e J a c k s o n v . V ir g in ia , 443 U . S . 307, 317–20 ( 1979) . A c c or di ngl y , the 1996 O r e gon f e l ony c onvi c t i on f

or attem p ted ro b b er y in th e s ec o n d d eg re e q u alifies a s a “strik e” u n d erC alifo rn ia’s T h r e e S tr i k e s l a w. W i l l i a m s ’ s e ve nth c l a i m i s s ubs t a nt i a l l y s i m i l a rt o hi s s e c ond c l a i m . T he pr os e c ut i on pr ovi de d s uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e t o de m ons tr a t e tha tthe 1978 pr i or conv i ct i on w as a s er i ou s f el on y thati nv ol ved ei ther adeadl y w eapo n o r c ause d gr e a tbodi l y i nj ury . C ontr a ry t o hi s a s s e rt i on, W i l l i a m s w a s puton not i c e tha tthe pr os e c ut i on w a s goi ng t o pr ovi de e vi de nc e t o e s t abl i s h tha tthe 1978 pr i or c o n v ic tio n q u a lif

ie d a s as tr ik e u n d e rC a lif o rn iala w . See J

am es , 2 4 F .3 d a t 2 4 . W i l l i a m s ’ f

i na l c ont e nt i on i s tha tus e of the 1974 a nd 1978 pr i orc onvi c t i ons a s s tr i ke s w a s avi ol a t i on of doubl e j e opa r dy be c aus e the f i r e a rm us e a l l e ga t i ons w e r e di s m i s s e d i n both c a s e s a s ar e s ul tof pl e aba r ga i ns . T hi s a r gum e ntl a c ks m e r i tbe c aus e “ the e nha nc e d puni s hm e nti m pos e d f orthe l a t e rof

f e ns e i s nott o be vi e w e d a s e i the rane w j e opar dy ora ddi t i ona l pe na l ty f orthe e a r l i e rc r i m e s but i nst ea d as ast i ff

ened penal ty f

or the l at es tcr i m e, w hi ch i s c on si dere d t o b e an aggravat ed offens e bec ause a r epet i t i ve on e. ” Se e U ni te d State s v . Kaluna , 192 F . 3d 1188, 1198 ( 9th C i r . 1999) ( e n ba nc ) ( quot i ng W i t te v . U ni ted Stat es , 5 1 5 U . S.389, 399 ( 1995) f orthe pr opos i t i on tha tr e c i di vi s ts e nt e nc i ng s c he m e s do not v io la te d o u b le je o p a r d y c lau s e ) . W i l l i a m s f

i l e d as uppl e m e nt a l br i e f pr e s e nt i ng the unc e rt i f

i e d i s s ue tha tthe se nt enci ng j ud ge foun d add i t i on al fa ct s i n eac h o f the pri or conv i ct i on s that i ncre as ed hi s s ent ence i n v i ol at i on of App re nd iv. N ew Je rs ey , 530 U . S . 466, 490 (200 0). W e dec l i ne t o exp and the C ert i fi ca t e of A pp ea l abi l i ty i n o rdert o rea ch W il li am s’ Ap

p r e n d i i s s ue . T he r e f

or e , A ppe l l a nt ’ s m ot i on i s de ni e d. A FFI R M ED