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 and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th 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 C HE S T E R J OH NS ON , P e titio n e r- A p p e llan t, v. AN THON Y N EW LAND ; ATTORNEY GE NE R AL OF T HE S T AT E OF C AL I F ORNI A; T OM L . C AR E Y, R esp o n d en t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 04- 16712 D . C . N o. C V - 97- 00558- WB S /DA D 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 W i l l i a m B . S hubb, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng

A r gue d J anua ry14, 2008 R e s ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r1, 2010 S a n F r an c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: W A L L A C E , H U G an dS C H R O E D E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C a l i f orni as t a t e pr i s one rC he s t e rJ ohns on ( “ pe t i t i one r ” ) appe a l s f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de ni a l of hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2254 habe a s pe t i t i on. W e ha ve j uri sdi ct i on un der 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 3. W e r evi ew de no vo the deni alof a habeas 

# FI LED DE C 03 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

p e titio n . T

an ner v . McD an i el , 493 F . 3d 1135, 1139 ( 9th C i r . 2007) . T he A n tite rr o r is m a n dE f

f e c tiv e D e a th P e n a ltyA c t ( “A E D P A ” ) g o v e rn s o u rr e v ie w . W oodf ord v . G ar c e au , 538 U . S . 202, 204, 207 ( 2003) . U nde rA E D P A , w e gr ant r e lie f if th e s ta te c o u rt d e c is io n w a s “c o n tr aryto , o rin v o lv e da n u n r e a s o n ab le ap p lic a tio n o f

, c le a r lye s tab lis h e d ” S up r e m e C o u rt law , o rw a s “a n u n r e a s o n ab le d e te rm in a tio n o f

th e f a c ts in lig h t o f

th e e v id e n c e .” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) . I f as ta te courtadj ud i cat es the m er i t s butdo es no tprov i de i t s r ea soni ng , w e c on du ctan in d e p e n d e n t r e v ie w o f

th e r e c o r d . G reen e v. L a m b ert , 288 F . 3d 1081, 1088- 89 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) . W e a f

f i rm. P e titio n e rc o n te n d s th a t th e B o ar d ’s 1 9 9 5 d e c is io n to d e n yh im p ar o le vi ol at ed hi s due proces s r i gh t s bec ause i tw as no tsupp ort ed by “ som e e vi dence. ” A de ni a l of

pa r ol e t o apr i s one rm us tbe s upport e d by“ s om e e vi de nc e ” of the p r is o n e r ’s th r e a t to p ub lic s a f e ty . H a y w a rd v . M a rs h a ll , 6 0 3 F .3 d5 4 6 , 5 6 3 ( 9 th C i r . 2010) ( e n ba nc ) . “ S om e e vi de nc e ” of dange r ous ne s s i nc l ude s the na tur e of the offe nse, a r ec ord o f vi ol ence , an un st abl e s oci alhi st ory or hi st ory of m ent al p r o b le m s , a n dm is c o n du c t in ja il. P i r t le v . Ca l. B d. o f P r is o n T

e rms , 611 F . 3d 1015, 1021 ( 9th C i r . 2010) . T he c om m i tt e d of f e ns e a l one doe s nots how da nge r ous ne s s unl e s s the r e c or d a l s o s how s s om e thi ng i n the pe t i t i one r ’ s pr e - or3

p o s t - i n c a r c e r a t i o n h i s t o ry , h i s c u rr e n td e m e an o r , o rh i s m e n t a l s t a t e wh i c h a l l o ws f o ra n in f e r e n c e o f c u rr e n t d a n g e r o u s n e s s . Id . T h e s ta te c o u rt d e c is io n up h o ld in g th e B o ar d ’s d e n ia l o f p e titio n e r ’s p ar o le w a s n o t c o n tr a ryto , o ra n u n r e a s o n ab le ap p lic a tio n o f , S up r e m e C o u rt p r e c e d e n t. P et i t i on erw as conv i ct ed of tw o fi rs tdegree mu rder s. H e e ng aged i n an ext ended c r i m e s pr e e w hi c h i nvol ve d m ul t i pl e vi c t i m s i n s e par a t e i nc i de nt s of vi ol e nc e . T he a g g r a v a te dn a tu r e o f

th e c r im e s s up p o rts ad e n ia l. M o r e o v e r , p e titio n e r ’s ju v e n ile r e c o r d , h is to ryo f

v io le n c e , a n dm is c o n du c t w h ile in ja il s up p o rt ad e n ia l. See P ir tle , 6 1 1 F .3 da t 1 0 2 1 . P e t i t i one ra r gue s tha tthe B oar d vi ol a t e d hi s due pr oc e s s r i ght s byde ny i ng h is r e q u e s t to h a v e th r e e n o n - f a m ilym e m b e r s te s tif

ya t h is 1 9 9 5 r e c is s io n h e ar in g . “T h e p r is o n e r ’s w itn e s s e s s h a ll b e c a lle du n le s s th e B o ar dh a s s p e c if ic r e a s o n s to deny hi s r equestand adv i se s the pri soner of tho se re as on s i n w ri t i ng . ” In re J ohns on , 35 C al . A pp . 4th 1 60 , 17 0 (C al . A pp . 19 95 ) ( ci t at i on s and i nt ernal quot a t i on m a rks om i tt e d) . H e r e , the B oar d de ni e d the r e que s tbe c aus e the w i tne s s e s w oul d ha ve pr ovi de d c um ul a t i ve e vi de nc e a nd the w i tne s s e s ha d a l r e a dy prov i ded l ett er s t o the B oard. T he B oard m aydeny a r equestfor di sposi t i on al w i tness es i f the evi dence w ou l d b e i rr el evantor cum ul at i ve and the t es t i m on y m ay b e p r e s e n te din w r itte n f o rm . See C a l . A dm i n. C ode t i t . 15, § 2668( b) . T hus , the4

s t a t e c ourt ’ s hol di ng tha tthe r e w a s no due pr oc e s s vi ol a t i on w a s notc ontr aryt o, or a n u n r e a s o n ab le ap p lic a tio n o f , S up r e m e C o u rt p r e c e d e n t. P e t i t i one rc ont e nds tha tappl i c a t i on of C a l . P e na l C ode § 3041. 1 vi ol a t e d the e x p o s t f a c to c lau s e . U n d e r§ 3 0 4 1 .1 , th e G o v e rn o rm ayr e q u e s t r e v ie w o f ap ar o le r e l e a s e de c i s i on up t o 90 day s be f or e the r e l e a s e da t e a nd onc e the r e que s ti s m a de th e rev i ew i s m an d at o ry. H ere, § 3 0 4 1 . 1 d o es n o tv i o l at e th e ex p o stfact o cl au se b e c au s e it d o e s n o t p u n is h a s ac r im e a n a c t p r e v io u s lyc o m m itte dw h ic h w a s n o t a c r i m e , i m pos e agr e a t e rpe na l tyf orac r i m e a f

t e ri tw a s c om m i tt e d, orde pr i ve one o f ad e f e n s e th a t w a s a v a ilab le a t th e tim e o f th e a c t. Se e C ol l i ns v . Y oungblood , 4 9 7 U .S . 3 7 , 5 2 ( 1 9 9 0 ) ; John son v. G om ez , 9 2 F .3 d9 6 4 , 9 6 7 - 6 8 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) . M or e ove r , the B oa r d e xe r c i s e d i t s i nhe r e ntauthor i tyt o r e vi e w the pa r ol e de c i s i on i n d ep en d en to f § 3 0 4 1 . 1 b ecau se th e G o v ern o r’ s req u estw as u n t i m el y. B ecau se no evi dence s ho w s avi ol at i on , the st at e c ou rt ’ s hol di ng w as no tcontraryt o, or an u n r e a s o n ab le ap p lic a tio n o f , S up r e m e C o u rt p r e c e d e n t. P e titio n e rc o n te n d s th a t h e w a s d e n ie ddu e p r o c e s s w h e n h e w a s r e tu rn e dto p r is o n w ith o u t ap a r o le r e v o c a tio n h e ar in g . B e c au s e p e titio n e rf ile dth is c la im in J a nua ry2000, a nd unde rA E D P A the l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od t o f i l e the c l a i m e xpi r e d on A p r il 2 4 , 1 9 9 7 , th is c la im is tim e - b arr e d . See 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 ( d ) ; Je nki ns v.5

J ohns on , 3 3 0 F .3 d1 1 4 6 , 1 1 4 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) , overruled on other groun ds, P ace v . Di Gu a l i e lmo , 5 4 4 U .S . 4 0 8 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . AF F I R ME D.