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. 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 OD AY MOUN S AV E NG , P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. AN THON Y A . LAM ARQU E, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 08- 15122 D . C . N o . C V -0 3 -0 5 3 7 7 -L JO 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 E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia L a w r e nc e J . O ’ N e i l l , 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 F e brua ry 8, 2010 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: G O O D W IN , B E R Z O N an d IK U T A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P ur s ua ntt o the c e r t i f

i c a t e of appe a l abi l i ty , thi s appe a l f r om ade ni a l of

28 U . S . C . 2254 habe a s c orpus r e l i e f t o O da y M ouns a ve ng pr e s e nt s tw o i s s ue s : ( 1) w hether the st at e c ou rtcom m i tt ed a s tructural error w hen the tri al j ud ge st at ed an 

# FI LED APR07 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

in c o rr e c t b u r d e n o f

p r o o f r e g a r d in g M o u n s a v e n g ’s d u r e s s d e f e n s e , a n d ( 2 ) if

n o t, w h e th e rth e s ta te ap p e lla te c o u r t’s h a rm le s s - e rr o ra n a ly s is w a s o b je c tiv e ly u n r e a s o n ab le . See 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 ( c ) ( 3 ) . B e tw e e n J ul y 31 a nd D e c e m be r19, 1996, M ouns a ve ng a nd V a e ne S iv o n g x x a y c o m m itte d f iv e a rm e d r o b b e r ie s o f

s m a ll je w e lry s to r e s a n d am in im ark et . In th e fi n al ro b b ery, S i v o n g x x ay sh o tan d k i l l ed o n e o f th e o w n ers. M ouns a ve ng a nd S i vongxxa y w e r e c ha r ge d w i th f i r s t - de gr e e m ur de r , f

e l ony m urder as t o M ou nsaveng, and rob bery , i ncl ud i ng fi re arm s e nh ance m ent s. T hey w e r e tr ie d to g e th e rw ith o u t aju ry . M ou nsaveng t es t i fi ed abou ta s er i es of ea rl i erun char ged rob beri es as w el l as the c ha r ge d r obbe r i e s . H e r e pr e s e nt e d tha thi s dur e s s be ga n i n D e c e m be r1995 w i th v ar i ou s i nd i vi du al s, i ncl ud i ng S i vo ng xx ay , w ho caused M ou nsaveng t o fea r f orhi s l i f e a nd ha rm t o hi s f

a m i l y , w hi c h r e s ul t e d i n hi s pa r t i c i pa t i on i n the c ha r ge d a nd unc ha r ge d r obbe r i e s . I n the f i ve c ha r ge d r obbe r i e s , M ouns a ve ng a nd S i vo ng xx ayhad h andg un s, al tho ug h M ou nsaveng cl ai m ed thathi s gun w as u n lo a d e d a n d th a t h e d id n o t r e c e iv e a n y o f th e m o n e y o rm e r c h a n d is e ta k e n . W hi l e M ouns a ve ng di d notc ont e s thi s i nvol ve m e nti n the r obbe r i e s , c ha r ge d a nd unc ha r ge d, he a s s e r t e d ade f e ns e of dur e s s unde rC a l . P e na l C ode § 26( 6) . T he tri al courtfoun d b oth d ef endant s gui l ty of one coun tof fi rs t -degree m urder,T he C a l i f orni aS upr e m e C our ti ni t i a l l ygr a nt e d M ouns a ve ng’ s pe t i t i on f or 1 r e v ie w , P e opl e v . Mouns av e ng , 1 0 9 C a l. R p tr . 2 d 3 0 0 ( 2 0 0 1 ) , b u t s u b s e q u e n tly di sm i ss ed i tas i m prov i dent l y gra nt ed, 12 6 C al . R ptr. 2d 53 5 (20 02 ). 3 th i r t e e n c o u n t s o f

r o b b e ry , a n d tw o c o u n t s o f a tt e mp t e d r o b b e ry p l u s th e f i r e a rms e n h a n c e m e n ts . R e ga r di ng M ouns a ve ng’ s dur e s s de f e ns e , the tr i a l j udge c onc l ude d: I f i nd i ns uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e of

dur e s s t o r i s e t o as t a nda r d of p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f

th e e v id e n c e a s to e a c h d e f e n d a n t. [M ou nsaveng] has e st abl i shed a pri m a f ac i e c as e thatw ou l d l ea d m e t o be l i e ve tha tthe r e i s the pos s i bi l i ty tha thi s i ni t i a l e ntry i nt o the r obbe ry c ons or t i um tha tM r . S i vongxxa y a nd pos s i bl y othe r s w e r e i n, h o w e v e r , th is is n o t p r o o f r is in g to ap r o b ab ility , a n d w o u ld o n ly a p p ly to u n c h a r

g e d r o b b e r ie s th a t w e r e te s tifie d to b y [ Mo u n s a v e n g

] . It is c l ear tha t

i n– i n b etw ee n the t i m e of tho se un charged rob beri es th a t h e te s tifie d

to a n d th e c h a r g e d

– th e firs t c h a r

g e d o ffe n s e in th is c a s e , h e h a d

a m p le o p p o r tu n ity to a le r t a u th o r itie s to p r o te c t h im s e lf an d h is f am i l y, lon g p er i od

s of t i m e una cc om

pa ni ed by any other pe rs ons w ho w e r e i n a pos i t i on to thr e ate n hi m orhis f am i l y w i th any i m m i n en t p eri l o r da n g er. H avi ng foun d the du re ss as t o eac h d ef endantdo es no tri se t o the le v e l o f ap r e p o n d e r a n c e o f

th e e v id e n c e , b u t a t b e s t w o u ld b e e v e n ly ba l a nc e d, the C ourtne e d nota ddr e s s the m or e t e c hni c a l l e ga l i s s ue s of ap p lic ab ility o f

d u r e s s to th e v a r io u s ty p e s o f o f f e n s e s in v o lv e d in th is ca se . T h e c o u r t s im p ly f in d s in s u f

f ic ie n t e v id e n c e o f

th a t d u r e s s to a f

f e c t a n y o f th e s e c h a r g e s o re n h a n c e m e n ts . ( E m p h a s is a d d e d .) P e opl e v . Mouns av e ng , 105 C a l . R ptr . 2d 285, 289- 90 ( 2001) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on 1 m a rk s o m itte d ) ( q u o tin g th e tr ia l c o u r t) .4

T he C a l i f

orni aC our tof

A ppe a l r e c ogni z e d tha tthe tr i a l c our t ’ s appl i c a t i on of a pre po nd er ance -of- the-e vi dence s t andard t o M ou nsaveng’ s dures s def ense w as e rr or , be c a us e i tr e l i e ve d “ the pr os e c ut i on of the bur de n of

pr ovi ng e a c h e l e m e ntof the c ha r ge d of

f e ns e be y ond ar e a s onabl e doubt , ” vi ol a t i ng M ouns a ve ng’ s due p r o c e s s r ig h ts . Id . at29 1. T he appel l at e c ou rt , ho w ever , anal og i ze d thi s t o tri al erro r i n j u ry i n stru ct i o n s rath er th an stru ctu ral erro r, m ak i n g i tsu b j ectt o h arm l esserror r evi ew un der Ch a

p m a n v . C a lifo r n ia , 3 8 6 U .S . 1 8 ( 1 9 6 7 ) , o n d ir e c t ap p e a l. Id . T h e C a lif

o rn iaap p e lla te c o u r t d e te rm in e d th a t th e tr ia l c our t ’ s appl i c a t i on of

the i nc orr e c tbur de n of pr oof on [ M ouns a ve ng’ s ] dur e s s de f e ns e w a s a ki n t o i m pr ope r l y i ns truc t i ng a ju ry o n th at issu e. C o n se q u en tl y, w e h o ldth at [M o u n sa v en g ’s] c onvi c t i on s houl d notbe s e ta s i de i f thi s c our tc a n c onf

i de nt l y s a y on the e nt i r e r e c or d tha tthe c ons t i tut i ona l e rr orw a s ha rm l e s s be y ond a re as o n ab le d o u b t, i. e., th e e rr o r d idn o t co n trib u te to th e c o u rt’s v e r d ic t. I d. a t291- 92 ( c i t i ng R o se v. C la rk , 47 8 U . S . 57 0, 57 6 (19 86 )) . T he courtno t ed thatthe tri al courtappl i ed the erroneou s pre po nd er ance -of- the-e vi dence s t andard on l y “ t o the un charged

robb er i es ”; there fore , “ thi s e rr or coul d n othave contri bu t ed t o the verdi ct . ” I

d. a t292. R e ga r di ng the c ha r ge d c r i m e s , the C a l i f orni aC our tof

A ppe a l s t a t e d tha tthe tri al co u rt“ d et erm i n ed i tw as c l e arthatbetw ee n the t i m e of the un char ged r o b b e r ie s a n d th e f

ir s t c h a r g e d r o b b e ry [ M o u n s a v e n g ] h a d a m p le o p p o r tu n ity to5

a l e r ta u th o r i t i e s t o p r o t e c th i ms e l f a n d h i s f a mi l y , l o n g p e r i o d s o f

t i me u n a c c o m p a n ie d b y a n y o th e rp e r s o n s w h o w e r e in ap o s itio n to th r e a te n h im o rh is fa m i l y w i th any i m m i nentperi l or dang er . ” I d. ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) . T he c our tquot e d U

ni ted Stat es v. B ai l ey , 444 U . S . 394 ( 1980) , i n w hi c h the S up re m e C ou rtaddres se d the defense s of dures s a nd nece ss i ty a nd re cogn i ze d that th e tw o d efen ses h ad “ o n e p ri n ci p l e [th at ] rem ai n s co n st an t [: ] ‘ [I] f th ere w as a r e a s onabl e , l e ga l a l t e rna t i ve t o vi ol a t i ng the l a w , “ ac ha nc e both t o r e f us e t o do the cr i m i nal ac tand al so t o avo i d the threa t ened harm , ” the defense s w i l l fa i l . ’ ” Mouns av e ng , 105 C a l . R ptr . 2d a t292 ( quot i ng B ai l ey , 44 4 U . S . at41 0). O n habe a s r e vi e w , the di s tr i c tc our tappl i e d B r e c ht v . A br aham s on , 5 0 7 U . S. 619 ( 1993) , w he r e a“ c ons t i tut i ona l e rr orr e s ul t s i n r e ve r s a l ‘ onl y i f i tha d a s u b s ta n tia l a n d in

ju r io u s e f

f e c t o rin f lu e n c e in d e te rm in in g th e . . . v e r d ic t’” ; th a t is

“ ‘ a c tua l pr e

j udi c e . ’ ” E R 25 ( quot i ng B r e c ht , 507 U . S . a t631, 637) . R e ga r di ng M ou nsaveng’ s c on st i tut i on al chal l enge un der f eder al l aw , the di stri ctcourtagre ed w i th the C a l i f

orni aC our tof

A ppe a l ’ s r e l i a nc e on B ai l ey , w hi c h “ e xpr e s s l y hol ds l a c k of ar e a s onabl e a nd l e ga l a l t e rna t i ve t o vi ol a t i ng the l a w t o be apr e c ondi t i on

‘ unde ra ny de f

i ni t i on of’ dur e s s . ” E R 31 ( quot i ng B ai l ey , 44 4 U . S . at41 0).

“ W e r e vi e w de novo the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntorde ni a l of a28 U . S . C . § 2254 pet i t i on for w ri tof habeas corpus. ” Y e e v . D unc an , 46 3 F . 3d 89 3, 89 7 (9th C i r.6

2 0 0 6 ) . T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s c o n f irm e d th a t m a n y tr ia l e rr o r s a r e s u b je c t to h a rm le s s - e rr o rr e v ie w . H e dpe th v . P ul i do , 1 2 9 S . C t. 5 3 0 , 5 3 2 ( 2 0 0 8 ) . I n th is c a s e , the s t a t e appe l l a t e c our tde t e rm i ne d tha tthe e rr one ous bur de n of pr oof appl i ed on l y t o the un char ged cri m es . B ec ause the tri al courtappl i ed the prop er , beyond -a -r ea sonabl e dou btst andard t o the charged cr i m es , the verdi ctas t o them w a s u n a f f e c te d .

“ We h a v e r e p e a t e d l y h e l d th a tas t a t e c o u r t ’ s i n t e rp r e t a t i o n o f s t a t e l a w, i n cl u d i n g o n e an n o u n ced o n d i rectap p eal o f th e ch al l en g ed co n v i ct i o n , b i n d s a fe 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 ( 2 0 0 5 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) ; se e Mus ladi n v . L am ar que , 55 5 F . 3d 83 0, 83 8 n . 6 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 9 ) ( “ [ W] e a r e b o u n d t o p r e s u m [ e ] th a ts t a t e c o u r t s k n o w a n d f o l l o w th e l a w, and w e have been i nstruct ed thatA E D P A ’ s def er ent i al st andard dem ands that st at e- courtdeci si on s be gi ven the benefi tof the do ub t . ” ( ci t at i on and i nt ernal quot a t i on m a rks om i tt e d) ) . T hus , the tr i a l c our t ’ s m i s s t a t e m e nta s t o the pr e ponde r a nc e - of

- the - e vi de nc e s t a nda r d r e ga r di ng M ouns a ve ng’ s i ne f f e c t i ve dur e s s de f

e ns e w a s atr i a l e rr ora s t o the unc ha r ge d c r i m e s , w hi c h di d nota f f e c tthe v e r d ic t a s to th e c h a r g e d c r im e s . L i k e th e d i stri ctco u rt , fo r co n st i tu t i o n al rev i ew o f h ab eas ap p eal s, w e u se the B r e c ht

s ta n d a r d th a t a n e rr o ris ha rm l e s s unl e s s i t“ ha d as ubs t a nt i a l a nd7

i nj uri ou s e ff

ec tor i nfl uence i n d et erm i ni ng the . . . verdi ct . ” B r e c ht , 50 7 U . S . at 6 3 7 ; se e Fryv. P l i l er , 55 1 U . S . 11 2, 12 0-22 (200 7) (r ec og ni zi ng thata habeas courtm ustappl y the B r e c ht s t a n d a r d , wh i c h s u b s u m e s th e AE DP A/ Chapm an s t a nda r d) . T he C a l i f

orni aC our tof

A ppe a l c onc l ude d tha tthe i nc orr e c ts t a t e m e nt of the bu rden of proo f w as l i m i t ed t o the un char ged rob beri es , and thatthere w as suff i ci entt i m e a nd op po rtun i ty betw ee n the un char ged rob beri es and charged r o b b e r ie s f

o rM o u n s a v e n g to h a v e a le r te d a u th o r itie s to p r o te c t h im s e lf a n d h is fa m il y a n d n o sh o w in g o f im m in en t d an g er . T h er ef o re , th e s tate ap p ellate co u rt’s ha rm l e s s - e rr ora na l y s i s w a s notobj e c t i ve l y unr e a s onabl e , a nd the e rr one ous bu rden-of-proof st andard appl i ed t o the un char ged cri m es di d n othave a su b st an t i al an d i n

j u ri o u s effect on th e v erd i ctfo r th e ch arg ed cri m es. AF F I RME D.