N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JOSEPH HUNT, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt,
v. TIM V. VIR GA, W a rde n, R

e sponde n t - Appe lle e . No. 13-56207

D.C . No. 2:98-c v-05280-R HW

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia R obe rt H. W

ha le y , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M a y 5, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : B YB EE a

nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s a nd STEIN, ** Distric t Judge
. 1. The C a lifornia Supre m e C ourt’ s 200 0 de n ia l of Jose ph Hunt’ s p e tition for
a writ of ha

be a s c o rpus did not strip the C a l ifornia C o urt of App eal ’s o pi n i on of its pre c e de ntia l forc e . The C a lifornia Supre m e C ourt sim

ply “ re fuse [d] to re a djudic a te ” 

# FIL ED
JUN 10 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.
** The Honora

ble Sidne y

H. Ste in, Distric t

Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion.Hunt’ s c la im s “ on the g round tha t [the y ] ha [d] b e e n pre v iously de te rm ine d.” C one v . Be ll , 556 U.S. 449 , 4 67 (2009). As suc h, t he C a lifornia Supre m e C ourt’ s d e nia l did not se rve a s a proc e dura l ba r, id. , w hic h

— i f de e m e d ine ffe c tive

— would pe rm it us to ignore the C a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l’ s m e rits de te rm ina tions. Se e Se e both v . Alle nby , 789 F.3d 1099, 1103 (9th C ir. 2 015). The C a lif o r n ia C ourt of Appe a l ha d de nie d o n the m e rits e a c h c la im Hunt ra ise s on a ppe a l be fore us. W e m

ust the re fore de fe r to that
c ourt’ s de nia ls as l o n g as the y we re ne ithe r “ c ontra ry to” nor “ involve d a n
unre a s ona

ble a pplic a tion” of c le a rly e sta blishe d Supre m e Co u r t l a w. 28 U.S.C
. § 2254(d)(1). 2. T he C a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l’ s de c ision to a pply Stric k

land v . W a shington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984), ra the r tha n C uy le r v . Sulliva n , 446 U.S. 3 35 (1980), to Hunt’ s
c la im tha t tria l c ounse l h a d a c onflic t of i nte re s t wa s not c ontra ry to c l e a rly e s ta

blishe d Supre m e C ourt la

w . It is not c le a rly e sta

blishe d tha t the C

uy le r fra m e w ork a

pplie s to insta nc e s in whic h c o unse l’ s purporte d c onflic t of i nte re s t w a s pe rsona l ra the r tha n ba se d on im

prope r joint re pre s e nta tion. Se e Mic k e ns v . Tay lor , 535 U.S. 162, 174–75 (2002); Foote v . De l Papa , 4 9 2 F
. 3 d 1026, 1 029 (9th C ir. 2007). W e a lso m a y not gra n t re lie f on the ba sis tha t the C a lifornia C o urt of Appe a l u nre a sona bly re fuse d to
e xte nd the C

uy le r fra m e work to a

pply to t he fa c ts of Hunt’ s pa

rtic u la r c onflic t c la im
. Se e W hite v . W oodall , 134 S. C t. 1697, 1706 (2014).
23. R e ga rding Hunt’ s ge ne ra l ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e c l a i m s , “ fa irm i nde d jurists
c ould d isa g re e ” ov e r whe the r tria l c ounse l’ s s o-c a lle d “ sa nita ry ” ta c t ic s re nde re d
c onstitutiona

lly ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e . H arrington v . Ric hte r , 562 U.S. 86, 102 (2011). Unde r the Antite rrorism a nd Effe c t i ve De a t h Pe na lty Ac t’ s (AEDPA) doubly de fe re ntia l le ns, C

ulle n v . Pinholste r , 563 U.S. 170, 190 (2011), we c a nnot c onc lude tha t c ounse l r e nde re d de fic ie nt pe rform a nc e by se l e c ting a n e xa m ina tion stra te gy he thought w ould e nsure tha t the witne ss te stifie d c o nsiste ntly w i th he r prior sta te m e n ts. Tha t ta c tic re a sona

b ly s ought to prote c t Hunt’ s de fe nse from a lle ga tions that his witne s se s we re ta i nte d. Eve n i f tria l c ounse l’ s que stioning w as i nsuffic i e ntly a ggre ssive , it wa s
re a s ona ble for the sta

t e c ourt to co n clude tha t Hunt fa ile d to s how the re quire d pre j udic e . Tw o a lle ge d e y e witne sse s te stifie d tha t the y sa w R ona ld Le vin a live in Ariz ona . Hunt points to no hy p othe tic a l te stim ony tha t a m ore a ggre s sive que stioning stra te gy c ould ha ve a d duc e d from

those witne sse s . W e ha ve a lso c onside re d Hunt’ s c onte ntions tha t the sta t e c ourts unre a sona

bly
re je c te d Hunt’ s re m a ining S t r ic k l and c la i m s re ga

rding tria l c ounse l’ s purporte d fa ilure s to disc o ve r, inte rvie w, or c a ll to the sta nd Olive r W e nde ll Holm e s, Ka re n Sue M a rm or, John D ura n , R obbie R obinson, Na d ia G ha le b, Iva n W e rne r, o r Louise W a lle r
a s we ll a s Hunt’ s c l a im s t ha t tria l c ounse l wa s ine ffe c tive i n fa iling to pre se nt

3e vide nc e of Le vin’ s a c c e ss to som e $500 , 00 0 , ev ide nc e re ga rding w he the r Le vin’ s Am e ric a n Expre ss cr ed i t card wa s use d a fte r L e vin’ s m urde r, or e v ide nc e of the
a nony m ous Nippe rs Nightc lub sighting. None of the se c la im s e ntitle Hunt to fe de ra l ha be a s re lie f. Fa ir-m i nde d j u rists c o uld d i s ag r e e ove r whe the r Hunt h a d de m onstra te d that
a ny of tria l c ounse l’ s c la im e d e rrors c onstitute d c onstitutiona l ly d e fic ie nt p e rform a nc e
or re sulte d in the re q

uire d pre judic e . Se e Galle

gos v . Ry an ,

__ F
. 3 d __, 2016 W L 1382194 a t *10 (9th C ir. A pril 7, 2016). Hunt fa ils to p o int to a n y thing B a re ns c ould ha ve done tha t w ould ha ve le d to a m ore tim e ly disc ove ry of m u c h of the
a bove m e ntione d e xc ulpa

tory e vide nc e . Nor c a n he show p re judic e for tria l c ounse l’ s fa ilure to pre s en t t o t h e jury se ve ra l w itne sse s w hose a c c ounts we re inc re dible or

“ pa the tic .” Inde e d, in light of the “ ove rwhe lm i ng” e vide nc e of Hunt ’s g uilt, a nd the sta te
c ourts’ fa c tua l findings, se e 28 U.S.C
. §§ 2254(d)(2), (e )(1), t ha t “ R ona l d Le vin is de a d a nd tha t [Hunt] kille d him ,” the C a lifornia c o urts’ re je c tion o f Hunt’ s Stric k

land

4c la im s sim

ply c a nnot be vie we d a s a ny thing le ss tha n re a sona ble give n A E DPA’ s stric t c onstra ints. 1 W e m

ust de fe r to those re a sona ble de c isions. AFFIRM E D.

1 W e c a nnot c onside r the juror de c la ra tions Hunt proffe re d. Pinholste r , 563 U.S. a t 180-81; Fe d. R . Evid. 606(b). Ac c ordingly , those de c la ra t ions ha ve no e ffe c t on our a

na ly sis of Hunt’ s Stric k

land c la i m s. 5